Hi all, I've only just joined the list - I'm mailing about the proposed abandoning of site locals because I'd like to use them!
Basically I'm involved in setting up a community wireless network in Southampton, UK. The wireless network itself is a fully routed mesh using private (10.13/16) addresses, the long term goal is to get ISPs to provide internet gateways which you connect to via a VPN, PPPoE or some other method, over which you get a public address. We'd like to start running v6 on the network alongside the 10.13 addresses and site-locals seem like the most sensible choice since it's the only allocation of v6 addresses which is going to be available for us to use and which is large enough to accomodate a /48 per access point (of which there could be hundreds). Obviously the same internet access model could be used so you would get a public prefix over the PPPoE connection. The site-local addresses would only be used for traffic contained within the the wireless mesh, if some areas offered open internet access then they could advertise an additional prefix routed from their own internet connection, thus avoiding any NAT. Well, that's my use and case for Site-Locals in a nut-shell! I realise that this type of deployment is quite a rare case, but I think it represents a legitimate use of private addresses. By the way, another option which would work very well in this type of scenario is the geographical based addressing - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-use-03.txt Thanks, Mike Saywell Southampton Open Wireless Network http://www.sown.org.uk PhD Student, Dept ECS, Southampton UK. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
