Brian,
> Brian Zill wrote:
> We need to be careful here. In our rush to eliminate
> the bad effects of the ambiguity present in site-local
> addresses today, let's not forget that there are some
> major plusses to existing site-local addresses that
> are the result of this ambiguity:
I agree with most of your points, and I have made the same arguments
myself earlier. I think though that there are ways we can have
reasonable guarantees that a globally unique address would *not* be
globally routable and I will repost soon what Bob Hinden and myself have
contributed to the topic.
> 1. They're free.
A small fee would not be a show stopper for people that want true
uniqueness.
> 2. They can be (auto)configured without having
to co-ordinate with some outside entity.
We can reserve a range of FEC0::/10 for these purposes, some kind of a
hash that would produce an almost unique address. This would be the
preferred choice of people that don't want to bother with registration
or that want the address for free.
> 3. They cannot be externally routed
Stay tuned.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
