Hello, I'm assuming that for the intents and purposes of replacing "local" site-locals, "nearly unique" site-locals would be enough.
(Actually, the change would be quite nice if implemented under fec0::/10 -- not many changes at all.) I'd like to focus a bit on how to generate these "nearly unique" site identifiers. Different dimensions here, which I could quickly think of, are: 1) randomly generated, or 2) "semi-provably" generated And for more detailed analysis: 1) is easy -- just use random generation, has of (MAC + timestamp), whatever. 2) would be based on some semi-stable identifier. If you'd like the property to be able to re-generate the site identifier later and get the same result, this is what you'd like. This may have some benefits, like automatic configuration is used without co-ordination in more than one location (e.g. using a company name as a key for hashing). This would also be desirable if you don't want to store the resulting site-id in some stable storage (really, should not be a problem). It seems likely that just randomly generated site-id's should be enough for everyone unless there are some synchronization requirements I'm not aware of. Did I miss something crucial? It appears to me that we have a very obvious and clear solution here, not even requiring any IANA/IESG action to get kickstarted. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
