Margaret Wasserman wrote: > ... > How are you planning to configure and organize these 20,000 nodes?
The ones that should not have public access would be configured to only listen for the SL prefix in an RA, or could be fed by DHCP. > > If the private nodes are randomly distributed around the > network, I certainly think that I'd rather configure an > access list with 10,000 addresses and run autoconfiguration, > then configure an access list with one prefix and have to > support DHCP or manual configuration for all 20,000 nodes, but YMMV. Depends on the local network and its configuration capabilities. There are environments where it is possible to use autoconfiguration, with a policy constraint on restricted access nodes that says only accept a SL prefix. > > If the private nodes are organized into private and public > subnets, so that you could use autoconfiguration with > site-local addresses on some networks and global addresses on > others, then why would you need site-locals for that? You > could just advertise two different global prefixes, and > filter one of them... I agree, but that requires specific topology constraints that are unreasonable. If my laptop needs to be publicly accessable but my printer does not, why is it reasonable to require separate network drops rather than letting them share a hub? Tony > > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
