On Sun, 2002-11-24 at 09:18, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > > Absolutely agree. I've experienced the both the VPN and network 10 > > addressing situation concurrently with IPv4, in addition to having to > > come up with bodgey solutions, I spent two months just saying to my > > self > > "customers should just get registered address space, and make my life > > (and theirs') a whole lot easier." > > Good point! > > > > > Globally unique site locals would fix a lot of the issues I had with > > trying to work out how I might use site-locals in large IPv6 network. > > > > Uhm, why not go with what you proposed above instead? >
As I understand it, the goal we are trying to achieve with site-locals (whatever model you follow), is to have locally controlled and assigned address space, independent of the global address space your provider gives you. I agree, if your global address space assignment from your provider is stable enough, and you don't have a requirement for addressing independence, you could simplify your network even further, and not use site-locals in any form at all. Using site-local and global addressing concurrently provides separation of internal verses external connectivity, which then allows external connectivity (and the associated global prefixes) to be changed, with (or at least this appears to be the goal) no impact on internal connectivity. What I think the new (pseudo?)globally unique site-local addressing models are doing is extending the scope of internal communications from a site (geographical or otherwise), to potentially global ie. they are saying that the potential for internal communications may be global, so let's create a separate address space with global uniqueness, but only for use with internal communications. For actual external communications, use existing publicly routable global addressing. Once all the organisations connected to the IPv6 Internet have globally unique site-local addresses, an illogical progression would be for them all to connect themselves up via backdoor connections - to the point where the actual Internet could be switched off :-) However, they will face the same route table explosion / aggregation problems that the real Internet already has, as well as the associated security problems, and will probably leave global connectivity up to the people who make it their business to do it properly - ISPs. Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
