> Why do the prefixes for topologically close networks need to be
> dissimilar. There is at least one proposal in multi6 for aggregable
> provider-independent addressing. I'm not sure how well it would
> work, because I haven't examined it in detail...
I haven't seen that proposal, so I can't comment on it.
but if the routing system can acquire the capability to aggregate
dissimilar prefixes, then we don't need to worry nearly as much about
trying to discourage global routing of PI addresses.
True. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that anyone has figured out a good
way to skin this cat from either end...
Margaret
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
