But if there is no difference we are suggesting to create PI space right? And leave the scaling problem of the routing table to multi6 group where it belongs?Uhm, if they are truely unique, the only difference to global addresses is that they won't be routed - right? Now, what is the difference between that and using global unicast address space that you do not announce?
Virtually nothing, except that this address space would be provider-independent, so you would not have to renumber, etc. when you change ISPs. Also, your ISP would not be obligated to route it globally and would probably filter it.I'm actually in favor of a globally-unique/provider-independent address space that is routable, with borders of the address space administratively determined and enforced via filtering rules in routers/firewalls.
What I am failing to understand is what we are looking for. The <insert letter>GUPI model will drive the development of NATs. Actually this would build NATs into the Internet architecture permanently. A number or people have pointed to the problems of this. That besides, if we now (I hope not) creates GUPI space, why do I then need site-locals as well?
Why do we need a separate allocation for GUPI? This could be all of the unicast addresses in IPv6.
Isn't this more or less 8+8?
- kurtis -
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
