On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 12:06:36PM -0500, Richard Nelson wrote: > Add to free - easy to obtain for non connected sites. 1918 addresses > are easy to obtain.
I have reservations here. I don't see how such prefixes, with the associated administration/registry work, will be offered for free. There may also be a few orders of magnitude more such prefixes requested than there are SubTLAs. Or do people feel such requests will be very limited? Who can manage this for no cost? So people will just pick their own prefixes at random, or use addresses in the site local space (which in a small network will be easier to remember and use for configs). Are there advantages to uniqueness (to the user) beyond some guarantee of avoiding clashes when merging sites? I doubt this is something I would care about in my home network, if it had intermittent connectivity and/or dynamic ISP-assigned /48's, and I wanted some kind of persistent address space to use internally). Whatever we offer has to be more attractive, as Christian said today, and if it's not free, it won't be. If DSL providers offer static /48's, we can reduce requirements for such independent address space in home networks, so the above may be moot. Tim > > Richard > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Christian Huitema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thursday, November 21, 2002 11:38 am > Subject: globally unique site local addresses > > > During the WG meeting, we agreed to work on the definition of a > > globally unqiue site local addressing architecture, so that we can > > eventually deprecate site local addresses. I am listing here so far > > a couple of points that were made by different speakers, as an > > introduction to the debate: > > > > * we want to remove ambiguity, which is the root cause of many > > problems occuring when scoped addresses leak. > > > > * 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. > > > > * we definitely want the addresses to be provider independent, so > > they can survive renumbering or intermittent connectivity. > > > > * indeed, it would be desirable that the addresses be usable in > > sites that are not connected. > > > > * and we would definitely want the addresses to be free. > > > > One of the main point of contention regarded routing. 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. > > > > Now, I guess we have to work from there. > > > > -- Christian Huitema > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
