How often do you think that people really set-up a private, disconnected network and later connect it to the Internet?
Do you think this will be a common real-life case, or is this more of a theoretical edge case? Margaret At 04:51 PM 11/13/02, Brian Zill wrote:
Brian Carpenter writes: > 3. Can't stop NAT's anyway. (several people). > That may sadly be true, but we shouldn't publish > specs that seem to encourage them. I would argue the opposite -- *preventing* site-locals and globals from co-existing encourages NAT. We're better off today than we would be with that restriction. Case study: A site has a disconnected network happily using site-locals. These addresses get embedded in all sorts of configuration scripts, etc. Then they decide to connect to the Internet and get a global prefix from their ISP. Today: They just advertise the new global prefix alongside the site-local prefix, all their hard-coded addresses continue to work. With restriction on mixing site-local and global addresses: They need to renumber their network and find all the places addresses have been specified in config files and the like. Or they could just use a v6 NAT. Which do you think will happen? --Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
