Keith, >> Michel Py wrote: >> So what is the difference between this new GUPI block >> and GUSLs, except that you want a possible evolution >> to globally routable for the new GUPI block?
> Keith Moore wrote: > problems with GUSLs as an alternative to GUPIs: > - the proposed uses of PI globals change too many > assumptions about how SLs were to be used to reuse > the FEC0::/10 prefix for that purpose. GUSL does not create PI globals. As its name implies, it creates globally unique site-locals, which would avoid NAT and/or renumbering when two sites connect. The scope would not be global, although it would go behind the site's boundaries. > - there were too many conflicting or intractable > assumptions about SLs anyway Assumptions in current drafts? > - we need PI globals that can be routed between sites > by private agreement anyway. We need _something_ that can be routed between sites by private agreement only. This does not need to be global. >> The obvious answer is that we create a new block _then_, not now. > no, because we need the block now to solve the problems with SLs. You are missing the point. If network administrators do not like restricted SLs, they will use 2002:0A00::/24 instead, a one-way ticket to NAT. Everybody would be better off having them use site-locals and try to limit the damage. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
