> > I suspect > >that some constraints on use of GUPIs are necessary unless there are > >technical means of allowing dissimilar prefixes for topologically > >close networks to be aggregated for the purpose of routing computations > >and probably advertisements also. > > Why to 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
