> It doesn't matter how many times you write this, you can not make it > become true. Brian keeps pointing out the simple case of an > intermittently connected network getting a different prefix on each > connect, but you keep ignoring it. STABLE ADDRESS SPACE IS A MAJOR > APPLICATION REASON TO HAVE SL.
Being the probable guilty party for introducing this thought back in draft-*-site-prefixes-00.txt I can offer a slightly expanded perspective. I don't think stable addresses per se is the key thing - it is the robustness of the communication that is important. This robustness has at least two factors that are relevant in this discussion: the stability of the addresses, and the leakage of non-global scope addresses. I think the question is how to weigh those together. In terms of the stability of the addresses one has to take into account both stability as it relates to local communication and stability for global communication. If you assume that the value/importance of local communication is much higher than the value/importance of global communication then site-locals make sense to explore. (FWIW that was my assumption way back). Such an assumption might make sense we say that a site is an administrative concept (such as a company), but it makes less sense if a site is a geographic concept and as I understand the original thoughts a site was intended to be a geographic concept like a building or a campus. In any case, for a home user I suspect that the value/importance of local communication would typically be less than the value/importance of global communication. Thus the ISP offering a service with unstable global addresses I don't think it would be that satisfactory for the peer-to-peer communication that we wish to enable with IPv6, even if there are stable site-local addresses so that the user can communicate inside their home without a glitch. Additionally, folks might want to use mobile-ipv6 and still get a quality service. Since MIPv6 MNs are likely to use global addresses (presumably they wish to be capable to move outside the home/site) their robust communication require reasonably stable global addresses. Finally, an enemy to robustness is complexity. Site-locals add complexity in many places; applications, two-faced DNS configuration, etc. So let's not loose sight of the fact that the goal is a robust network. Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
