> I suppose basically I'm considering internal to be any time one > organisation chooses to make its GUPI address space routes available to > another, and accept the other organisation's GUPI address space routes. > The organisation knows who it is talking to and vice versa (I'm not > talking about a trust relationship here though - just the conscious > decision to interconnect to each other's networks and the trading of > GUPI routes).
Okay, it just seems like an odd use of the word "internal" to me. (I'm tempted to quote Lewis Carroll here but I won't. :) > > Another difference is that I see little reason for a network to support > > both GUPIs and globals - if a network has globals then it is probably > > better off without GUPIs. Yes, GUPIs might be more stable than globals, > > but this is not necessarily the case - the opposite could also be true. > > > > Other than internal links failing, causing destination unreachables, > timeouts etc, what cases would there be where globals are more stable > that GUPIs ? When the site network is renumbered/reorganized more often than the site's ISP changes the global prefix assigned to the site. People seem to assume that ISPs will want to change prefixes every week while the site will wisely manage its address space and never need to reassign suffixes, but it ain't necessarily so. I've certainly seen internal renumbering required because of poor address space management within a site. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
