On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:07:03PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > So, why not simply deprecate SL for sites that have at least one > global prefix? Or am I too simple minded?
I think a site getting global connectivity would find it hard to migrate instantly from site-locals to globals. The suggestion to prefer globals over site locals in the default address selection spec, along with Brian's suggested text a couple of mails back, seems good. A question is how does a 100, 10,000 or 1,000,000 node network using site-locals most efficiently migrate to globals, with minimum disruption, when gaining external connectivity? How long would the process take? > That would then leave us with a couple of real problems to avoid NAT: > multihoming, and easy renumbering. Maybe we should promote deployment scenarios that reduce the required frequency of renumbering, like using static rather than dynamic /48's for broadband customers. Perhaps that is an issue for the RIR's as it would require significantly more than a /32 for an ISP to do static /48's to a few million customers at an 80%-85% host density ratio. Should Christian's renumbering scenario draft be revisited? http://www.join.uni-muenster.de/drafts/draft-huitema-ipv6-renumber-00.txt I don't believe it is still current? Is this a v6ops or an ipv6 WG issue? Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
