On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 12:00:45PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Leif Johansson wrote:
>
> > Mark Thompson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > No matter how you capitalize the word, it still needs to run the same
> > applications! Applications must not know about topology. Period.
>
> I am also *against* Link local.
>
> IP's should be globably unique. Which will overcome many problems
> like network mergers ('oh we need to NAT now'), e2e problems etc.
This is very true, but there are certain scenarios (like the network I've
described) where we have a need for a large number of addresses, which
dont require to be globally routable (since network is self-contained).
If it was possible to use global addresses then I would, however rules
regarding the IPv6 address space allocation make this a near impossibility
for us. :(
I can't really see the motivations to do NAT under v6 when it's so easy
to have multiple addresses on an interface anyway. Joining 2 networks
which use the same address site-local addresses would be nowhere near
as painfull as before since it's that much easier to re-number one of
them under v6.
Cheers,
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
