> > > - it seems that it would be advantageous for nodes within the site to > > > use sitelocals whenever possible, especially if your global > > > connection is via flaky connection. > > > > Indeed, but this is the dilemma between preference for globals to avoid the > > site-local scoping "headaches" and preference for site-locals for connection > > persistence during renumbering or (dis)connectivity events. > > Er, but I use global addresses every day on good ol' IPv4, within my > employer's internal network, and they work just fine when external > connectivity is broken. I see no advantage in local addresses here.
Well, but that may change in IPv6: when your global connection disappears, your routers may stop advertising the global prefixes in RA's, thus your connections using global addressess will fail, because there is no route (onlink prefix) for them anymore. Of course, your routers may keep on announcing the global prefixes. However, there may be some confusion, if your new global connection brings up a different prefix (site renumbering), and your old prefix has been assigned to someone else. I think this is just a choice for site to make, if they know they have fixed global prefixes, they don't need to configure their routers to advertise site locals. They just configure the fixed globals. Again, no problem. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
