Hi Margaret, > On the contrary, some of the pushback on site-local addressing > has been from people who run real networks. One of the deciding > factors in the WG meeting discussion was the statement from a few > real network operators that they don't need a special prefix for > non-connected networks -- since they'll have to renumber when they > connect, anyway, they could just use a random prefix on their > disconnected networks. > I actually don't understand why renumbering would be necessary while movingfrom disconnect to connect state. Do you make the assumption that only a single address must be used ?
I think one may need/want to use both site-local addresses (for local traffic exactly the same way than during disconnect state) and global addresses (for external connections) together with address selection. In that case there is no need for NAT boxes, although that maybe used anyway. Then, renumbering will happen only when changing of ISP. On an other hand, site-local provides a global non-routable address space, that may be very usefull for adressing nodes (e.g. an ISP back-bone) that definitly do not need to be address from the outside. Alain. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
