On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Keith Moore wrote: > > Counter to what one might believe from reading my comments above, I don't > > like the architectural mess that has occured as a consequence of the use > > private addresses in IPv4. The difference between me and the anti-site- > > local camp is that I don't anticipate that network administrators will > > stop using private address (IPv6 or IPv4) unless they are provided with > > good reasons not to use them. That means solving renumbering, solving > > address shortage, artificial or otherwise, providing the an alternative > > "private" address scheme of the sort cited above > > I agree with the above. We *really* need to work on a complete > story for renumbering. We *really* need a way for sites to get > non-publically-routable (but routable between private networks), > provider-independent address space.
In the multi6 wg, there have been some proposals on the table on geographically assingned PI addresses. If for nothing else, they could be useful in renumbering scenarios; having two sets of addresses, one which do not depend on your ISP, should make the renumbering a bit less painful. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
