> Exactly. Perhaps I'm over-abstracting...but it seems to me > like a globally-unique site-id is just another form of a global > address.
of course it's a global address. but that doesn't mean it's globally routable. > I think there are lots of reasons not to make these site-ids globally > unique, if we choose to adopt them. name one. > For instance, how does an > ad hoc, disconnected network get a site-id? that's not a reason, that's a problem to be solved. there is every reason to believe it can be solved as long as we can get enough bits for the site-id. similarly the routing table concern is a valid concern that has to be addressed, but in a way the mechanism is its own solution, since there's no way that ISPs are going to even attempt to route every site-specific prefix in existence. those that try will quickly lose, thus solving the problem. > Maybe it doesn't need one. there's no way to know. most sites currently using v4 private addresses probably didn't realize the mess they were getting themselves into either. > What about my home? Do I have to go to my ISP or ICANN to get a > site-local ID for my home? why not just get it for free with your cable modem/router/whatever? Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
