> From: David Borman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > IPv4 has globally routable GUPI (GRUPI) addresses. That's all it had > in the early days. The explosion in the size of the routing tables is > was forced changes such as CIDR and new addresses being allocated from > ISP blocks. The only reason we still have GRUPI addresses in IPv4 > is because they were grandfathered in. > > With the current routing structure, trying to define IPv6 GRUPI addresses > is doomed to failure because it will not scale. We learned that with IPv4. > Until there is a new routing structure that will support scaling of GRUPI > addresses, we should not define GRUPI addresses. > > We are talking about 3 different classes of addresses, they should > each have their own block of address space: > > 1) Leave FEC0::/10 as Site Local addresses. They are not globally > unique, but several proposals have been proposed for picking > them in a somewhat random method to make them mostly unique. > Site Locals should be free and not require any registration. > > 2) There seems to be a need for a globally unique version of Site Local > addresses (GUSL), so we should just define a new block for them. > These would require registration, and perhaps a fee, just like when > you get a domain name. > > 3) If anyone ever comes up with a method for handling the problem of > scaling GRUPI addresses in the routing protocols, then at that time > we can define a third block for GRUPI addresses. > > At the Atlanta IETF meeting I voted for limited use of Site Local > addresses. That is because we have several issues for dealing with > SLs, DNS support being one of the top items. It seems to me that the > pros and cons of SL vs. GUSL vs. GRUPI have been discussed in great > detail, and we now just seem to be rehashing the same things. > > 1) We seem to have a better handle on dealing with GUSL addresses (or > at least we've identified issues that SLs have that can be mitigated > by having GUSL addresses), so we should get a block of address space > reserved for GUSL addresses, and those who want them can work on > getting the registration rules set up. > > 2) Many of the issues that GUSL addresses mitigate can be mitigated for > SLs by having random generation of SL prefixes. So we should select > the method(s) of generating pseud-random SLs and document it (them). > > 3) We should list the specific problems that will occur with wide-spread > deployment of SLs and GUSLs, and start to work on them one at a time. > > 4) The people who really want GRUPI addresses should work on the scaling > issues with routing, and if that is ever solved then a new block of > addresses can be allocated for GRUPI. > > -David Borman
This is the most sensible posting I've seen on this issue in the past month and a half. -- George Mitchell -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
