> Tony Hain wrote: > I was not arguing against SLs with site-ids, just that we should > not try in any way to lead people down the path where those > site-ids are perceived to be globally unique. > As long as the site-id is a locally administered value, a network > administrator can use them privately in any way he sees fit, > including private connections to other networks (assuming they can > coordinate amongst themselves to avoid collisions). > My primary concern is that we avoid building what amounts to an > address registry of global scope, which ends up maximizes entropy > in the routing system.
I agree, but you would have to restrict to a very few the number of bits that are locally administered. If there are 16 bits to play with, it won't take long to figure out that filling them with the AS number does indeed make a globally unique "local" address without even a need for coordination to avoid collisions. > Yes we need PI public space, see: draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-use-02.txt > for some of the reasons why. This text is excellent. Tony and I are following different paths on the resolution, but the reasons remain the same. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
