below...
Mike Saywell wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 05:19:31PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > Mike Saywell wrote:
> >
> > > I think everybody is in agreement that in your typical IPv6 commercial
> > > or home deployment site-locals should not be used, the point
> > > is that there are other environments where site-locals have a
> > legitimate
> > > use and which (imho) there has been no reasonable proposed alternative
> > as of yet.
> >
> > Name those environments then.
>
> Well off the top of my head...
>
> #1
> An initially isolated ad-hoc network which is larger than a single
> subnet. The ad-hoc network may become attached to the global internet
> periodically, each time via a different ISP. One example of this could
> be on a boat which only gets global connectivty whilst in port.
>
> #2 (related)
> For an ad-hoc network to auto-config it needs an address range to use.
> It's extremely limiting to confine them to a single subnet.
>
> #3 (to be found at the root of this thread)
> A provider independant (i.e. no upstream ISP) network which aims to
> provide transit between 2 or more networks (which may or may not be
> public).
>
Any address space is private if you choose not to announce a route
to it. So any address space that you can get legitimately will
satisify these requirements. Although 6to4 space was designed for
something else, as people have pointed out, it can be used this
way, if you can't get a normal global prefix.
We may well need an allocation mechanism for PI prefixes, known to
be unrouteable in general, but that is another thread.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
