Bill Sommerfeld wrote: > > > 3. They cannot be externally routed (Some would > > consider this to be a minus as well). > > > I believe 1 and 2 can be solved (fairly) easily by other means. The big > > problem is number 3. The ambiguity is essential to preventing them from > > ever being routed. > > so, i'm not conviced that we have this third property adequately > written down in the existing site-local case. > > The ambiguity means that you can't count on them working, but because > of the likelihood of configuration error plus the likelihood that > many/most routers will forward site-locals by default, you can't count > on them reliably not working, either!
In any case, if they can't be routed *even in a private network* you can be sure they will end up being NATted (e.g. when two companies merge, or when a company sets up a VPN to a business partner). Conversely, if they are globally unique they *will* be routed within private networks, using any old routing protocol. >From which I conclude that globally unique site locals will vastly damage the market for v6 NAT, so let's figure them out quickly. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
