On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Keith Moore wrote:
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Allocating one /32 and giving these sites a /48 each should last for the
> > first 64k such private networks (which are assumed to be rather rare).
>
> they might be more plentiful than you think. [...]
Well, personally, I can clearly see a few cases (e.g. in the military),
but the rest, I could separate to a few cases:
1) have IPv4 connectivity but no IPv6 (or stable IPv6 -- something like
6to4 with dynamic v4 address)
2) have zero 'net connectivity ("clear cases") -- usually by design
3) have full connectivity but want somehow permanent addresses, to be used
locally, for renumbering, to be leaked to the internet, etc.etc.
Which cases we want to provide addresses for?
(btw. I suggested one /32 but one for each RIR + room for expansion would
be more adequate, I think.)
--
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
