Tony, Tony Hain wrote: > > 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.
Thank you. I completely agree. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
