Michel Py wrote: > - Multiple subnets, this requires some configuration in terms of VLANs > anyway and if you can configure VLANs you don't have a problem going to > Charlie's server to get your site-local prefix.
I disagree. Several people have already *built* multi-subnet multi-router systems which require minimal user configuration (see zerouter BOF). I don't want to administer my routers - I want to plug them together and have them work. And I want this to work independent of the presence or absence of an ISP. Sure, I could build the network as one massive layer-2 bridged subnet (um, lets delegate that up to layer 3 instead rather than reimplement routing at layer 2) or a multi-link subnet (has possibilities), but there are advantages to running a traditional L3 subnetted architecture. This is why I find the idea of generating an entire /64 prefix per subnet without needing ANY interaction beyond the router so attractive. Why should humans be doing work that the routers can do themselves? > I can't find a reason why you would want site-locals to be automatically > configured, and this point has been made before here. I've built (experimental) networks that rely on this functionality. And it's possible to apply most of these mechanisms for globals too. -- Andrew White [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
