What is the use of eliminating ambiguity *and* make sure these addresses are not globally routable? I can only see one usage, namely: site-to-site connections. On which there was consensus that this was not the way to go. But perhaps there are more reasons?
In theory you are absolutely right. But it practice this won't work. The charm of RFC1918 and site locals is that one not have to go to any registry. Which is a barrier no matter what. Provided that this is the way to go. We need to come up with a way to automate/self-assign "likely to be globally unique site local addresses". The *only* use for this is to inter-connect globally disconnected sites. For globally connected sites we either have to stick with the PA space architecture or come up with something new to ensure address stability. Arien On 21-11-2002 12:35AM, "Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
