Mike Saywell wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 11:51:24PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > To sum up, the only reasons I have seen so far and please add to > > list if I miss a couple, which is quite probable and very much > > related to NATs, which are being discussed for deprecation also...
<SNIP> > Well, there's my original reason... > > - My network is operator independant but I'm not a multi-national > company or an ISP (thus not in a position to obtain address space > directly from a registry). Sitelocals have nothing to do with this, as you apparently want globally reachable address space. Effectively this means you are an endsite, thus get space from you upstream. And the real solution for you lies in Multihoming to make sure your operator independency is guaranteed. > Also... > > - Ad-hoc networks become restricted to link local addresses and thus > a single flat subnet. > > The latter is perhaps covered by the appendix in the draft, but I do > not beleive the former has been addressed. This is indeed mostly covered by the appendix. I actually rather see a seperate: 'disjunct non-globaly routable address registry' as a solution here. Eg a RIR where one can request space from the site local addresses. Thus making them at least globally unique. I do see a reason for that kind of address space. But basically this is the same for ASn's, MAC's, EUI-64 and IPv4 space. Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
