> > Keith Moore wrote: > > yes, some people will probably try to use GUPIs where PA > > globals would be a better choice. eventually, they'll > > learn. they'll have to renumber to fix that problem, but > > it won't be more difficult than any other kind of IPv6 > > renumbering, and we have to solve that problem anyway. > > The trouble is that they might elect to use NAT instead of renumbering.
perhaps. but that potential exists for IPv6 in general. GUPIs don't make that any worse. > I have seen this many times with IPv4. What you propose is taking one > problem away (site-locals) and replacing with one even worse (NAT). no, that's simply not true. > > I do think that an addressing architecture that > > simplifies decision-making would minimize the potential > > for delusions. From that perspective, a simple table is > > quite attractive: > > network not connected to the | PI global addresses > > public internet, but | > > connected to other IP networks | > > via private arrangements | > > PI global addresses do NOT exist. we've been talking about various proposals for creating them since long before Atlanta. where have you been? 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
