On Sat, 2002-11-23 at 13:37, Christian Huitema wrote: > One of the point in the discussion of the "globally unique" site local > addresses has been the discussion of their usage. In particular, if the new > addresses are globally unique, how do we prevent them from being > globally routed and creating a mess in the global routing tables; and, > on a related note, how do we make sure that they are actually local? > > The issue is clearly complex. There are legitimate scenarios in which > two sites might want to create some kind of backdoor connection > independent of any ISP connection, in a way similar to the various > "extranet" scenarios that are common today; it could also be used in a > merger situation. There are also illegitimate scenarios in which a > powerful customer would pressure an ISP to simply advertize their > globally unique /48.
Why is this scenario "illegitimate"? It is certainly not scalable to millions of sites (with current routing technology), but on the other hand private jets are not scalable either, and yet there seems to be a healthy market for them. I'm having a hard time understanding why any of the thousands of institutions with IPv4 PI address prefixes would ever migrate to IPv6 if they had to give up PI addressing. Regards, =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Steven L. Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ericsson IP Infrastructure +1 919-472-9913 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
