Tim, >> Michel Py wrote: >> As I mentioned before, we MUST NOT encourage the use of >> site-locals for people that don't understand their >> limitations, and this certainly applies to the SOHO >> example you used.
> Tim Chown > So how do I print to my net printer in between connections > to my ISP when I get a different prefix each time I connect? > I want some kind of addresses to use locally equivalent to > Net10. Not for NAT, but to communicate internally while > offline. This is a perfectly valid use of site-locals, my point was that we should not generalize the use when there are alternative methods. To some extent, site-locals are too easy. If you _choose_ to use them, OK. But a router MUST NOT offer site-locals as a default. >> Let me emphasize again that none of this stuff goes anywhere is there >> is no default enforcement of non-routability along the lines that Bob >> Hinden, Christian Huitema and myself have contributed, and I have not >> heard many comments about that part. > Indeed. I'm a little confused that GUPI = site-local, nothing > really new only we're (in PekkaS's method) just "randomising" > which site-local is used, so all the bad things of site-locals > remain I hear that lots of the issues have something to do with ambiguity. By making site-locals globally unique (GUPI) we remove ambiguity and take some of the problems out. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
