Keith Moore wrote: > I'm pretty much opposed to prefixes other than /48 also. It's really > much more difficult to renumber a site if the old and new prefix lengths > are different.
Assuming we can make the site-local prefixes globally unique, why would we ever need to renumber them? I want provider independent globally unique site-locals precisely so I can set my local network up to be independent of renumbering events. Further, using an EUI-48 for a prefix (which extends beyond /48) allows the site-local addressing to be automatically generated. If you have working unicast site-local addressing, one can then imagine building protocols on top that automatically allocate 16 bit SLA numbers from global prefixes (a la zerouter). I can also imagine bootstrapping router renumbering from working automatically configured site-local addressing. - aidan -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
