Alan, Thanks for your comments.
> The three allocation types may be broader in scope > that the _minimum_ requirements, but, to quote Mae > West: "too much of a good thing can be wonderful." Note (as mentioned earlier) that the third type is subject to scrap at any time, including if the rest of the text reaches consensus, in order to expedite the process. > Since we are already dealing with a /10 block for the entire > SL space, this yields a maximum of 2**38 allocatable prefixes. > I am impelled to wonder aloud: is this a sufficient count of > possible allocations to meet the anticipated demand over the > expected life of the IPv6 protocol? The answer to this question is likely yes. Comparing scalability with another topic which is multihoming, we have designed the number of multihomed sites around 2**32 (4 billion). Although we would have the possibility to allocate another /16 for multihomed sites should the need arise, please keep in mind that: - Site-locals are not for everybody. - 2**38 is 256 billion, of /48 sites with 64k subnets each this is. There are 6 billion people on this planet today. I don't see the need for more than 1 site per person, if that. If we get in a situation such as massive colonization of outer space or Earth looking like Coruscant, we will allocate another /10 for site-locals. > Should we consider making the routing protocol requirement > more general by substituting the specfication "any exterior > gateway protocol" for the very specific "BGP"? Good point, changed. > a) GUSL addressing may not be assigned to links (private > or otherwise) connecting two or more sites, even if the > GUSL addresses are not routable over the public network; > or > b) traffic bearing GUSL source or destination addresses > may not be carried over links (private or otherwise) > interconnecting two or more sites, even if the links > themselves bear global addresses > Based on previous traffic in the mailing list, I would > expect that your intent would have been closer to the > latter. Actually, both. I was thinking about replacing the text with: 3. Multiple sites: GUSL addresses MUST NOT be used for communication with other sites. Routers MUST NOT forward any packets with GUSL source or destination addresses outside of the site. > I see potential implementation inconveniences with either > interpretation above, but nothing that is insurmountable > if a reasonable PI address allocation scheme for private > network facilities is worked out before IPv6 begins to see > widespread service in end-user networks. Agreed. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
