> Margaret Wasserman wrote: > As far as I can tell, Michel's view on this does > not represent the majority view of people who > favour the use of site-local addresses for > private addressing.
I gave up on that one. I thought it would be consensual, obviously it is not. > Due to the way that we expect IPv6 address to be > allocated (a /64 per subnet) and assigned (using > address autoconfiguration), though, there will be > a tendency for all of the nodes on a single network > to use the same set of prefixes. If a global > prefix is advertised on the subnet, all nodes on > that subnet would configure global addresses. > Obviously, this could be overridden using manual > configuration or by using DHCPv6 for address > assignment. Which is the very reason I mentioned earlier that from the enterprise perspective it was a draw. 25 workstations, you don't have an issue if 3 need public addresses, but if you have a subnet with 200 hosts, and 100 of them need public addresses, the administrative cost associated with 100 static IPs or 100 DHCP reservations is not negligible. Compare this with creating another VLAN in the layer 3 switch. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
