> 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...
we need the ability to assign global prefixes to sites that aren't
directly connected to the public Internet, even though they might
be connected to large numbers of other networks.
Okay.
But, why make them inherently private, non-routable addresses?
If we come up with a reasonable way to allocate globally-unique,
provider-independent addresses, is there a reason to require
that they be non-globally-routable?
There is some work underway in multi6 regarding mechanisms for
provider-independent allocation of globally routable addresses.
Wouldn't that be better?
Then, if you wanted part of your network to be private, you
could make it private via filtering both traffic and routing
protocol advertisements.
Margaret
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
