Christian, > Christian Huitema wrote: > we want to remove ambiguity, which is the root cause > of many problems occuring when scoped addresses leak.
If we want these addresses to be used, there are two things we need to do: 1. Make these addresses globally unique, which is effectively removing ambiguity. As of today, I don't see how we could achieve this without a uniqueness database. It probably means some kind of a registration and possibly a fee. We absolutely need to make the registration easy and the fee low if there is one. I invite people to have a look at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-py-multi6-gapi-00.txt and its (temporary) results: http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/geov6.txt This scheme would use 1/64th of the FEC0::/10 space (replace 2346::/16 with FEFE::/16) 2. Make these addresses not globally routable, not only by decree but by requiring them being blocked by default and also BGP routes for this range being rejected by default. Ambiguity is somehow a guarantee that these addresses are not publicly routable. If we remove ambiguity, we need to provide something instead to address this. Bob Hinden and I have contributed some interesting suggestions about this earlier, but they were lost in the email volume. If my memory is correct, Bill Manning was the only one to pick it; Bill, I would like more of your comments. > we may or may not want to prevent routing of these > addresses between sites. I guess we should certainly > prevent routing between non-consenting sites. See above. > we definitely want the addresses to be provider > independent, so they can survive renumbering or > intermittent connectivity. Definitely. > indeed, it would be desirable that the addresses > be usable in sites that are not connected. Yes. >and we would definitely want the addresses to be free. I think we have to accept the compromise of a low fee, as the uniqueness database would likely be handled by the RIRs and we don't want to bankrupt them. > I guess that the consensus is, "just like site local > addresses." We don't want to prevent usage in connected > sites, but we expect that in these sites the hosts will > also have provider based addresses, and that traffic > routed out of the site will use the provider addresses. Agreed. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
