Keith Moore wrote: > ... > of course it's a global address. but that doesn't mean it's globally > routable.
You have just argued yourself into a corner. If the address the app chooses is not globally routable, how does it connect? Why would it have chosen SL over the PA prefix to begin with? Wouldn't it make more sense to avoid the possibility of being black-holed? You are looking for addresses that are both locally administered (for the site that is not attached), and globally routable (for the app to actually connect in any arbitrary case with nodes outside the private network), but recognizing those are mutually exclusive. The reason I have gleaned from this thread is that you don't want the app to have to worry about scope. How can it avoid worrying about scope if your preferred address mechanism doesn't go everywhere? Functionally the scope mechanism provides a much cleaner decision point for an app than a nebulous expansion of SL to include globally unique site-ids. Again I have no problem with locally administered site-ids, because those are routed within the context of the private network so an app can rely on them. If the app wants to connect outside the scope of the private network, it really needs to be using a global address, or have lots more knowledge about current routing policy than anyone will ever share with an app. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
