Mark / Brian, >>> Michel Py wrote: >>> GUSL solves the merger thing, but not the VPN.
>> Mark Smith wrote >> I'm not sure I see the difference. > Brian Carpenter > I agree. As longs as GUSL prefixes are unique, you can > flat route them in a "foreign" enterprise network. Maybe > some ad hoc static routes are needed, but that's common > in inter-enterprise VPN setups. Note that what you are saying was my original thinking. But it conflicts with the following text in [addrarch]. > draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt [Page 12] > 2.5.6 Local-Use IPv6 Unicast Addresses > [..] > Routers must not forward any packets with site-local > source or destination addresses outside of the site. Although there is no normative language, this seems pretty clear to me. And, I hear there are lots of problems associated with site-locals and multiple sites. I think that inter-site communications would be better off *not* using site-locals. This means that today they must use PA, and could use GUPI when it is available. In other words: The fact that GUSL could enable inter-site communications (because it removes ambiguity) does not mean it should: GUSL still are site-locals and must stay confined within the site. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
