Do you meant to imply that a separate block of addresses should be set aside for non-globally-routable globally-unique addresses?
I'm not sure what we gain by doing that, as opposed to setting aside private address space from any global prefix by filtering it at administrative boundaries... Margaret At 12:44 PM 11/12/02, Keith Moore wrote:
> As I said before, it seems that everyone agrees that a globally unique > site-local would be the way to go, but there are two major roadblocks to > remove on that path: > - Make sure that site-locals are not globally routable (I posted some > comments about this earlier) seems fairly easy. the hard part is the wordsmithing. - addresses with this prefix range MUST NOT be advertised to other networks. - advertisements for addresses with this prefix range that are received from other networks SHOULD be filtered - traffic with source or destination addresses in this prefix range SHOULD be filtered from external connections unless there is an explicit agreement with the peer to accept traffic for a specific range of addresses. > - Solve the multihoming issue. Multihoming is a problem, but the multihoming issue seems orthogonal to site-locals. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
