Hi Jeroen, > > BAUDOT Alain FTRD/DMI/CAE wrote: > > > 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 ? > > Because fec0:: (Site-local) would be used by many sites and > is not routable? or do you mean that the site actually runs > with a /48 from it's upstream, disconnects temporarily and > then reconnects while retaining the same space?
I mean site local has a local scope, so why renumering to global scope and not just leave as it is, and then having global, site-local and link-local addresses ? This actually refers to the moderate model. Unless using a single address for everything is for some reasons preferable. > > > 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. > > How is your application going to differentiate between > site-local... oh wait, the application is going to need > to differentiate to some address space in some cases but > not all and clearly totally undefined. And you don't want > to go even near NAT. Otherwise you will have to fix up > all those protocols which carry IP addresses inside them. > One of the major contenders: H323. The application will select local scope for local destination (e.g. Intranet) and global scope for destination having global addresses. Indeed H.323 applications most propably will have a global scope, and so, must use global addresses. > > If you imply NAT I think one can better stay at IPv4 where > you don't have end-to-end communications either. Which > was the reason otherwise that there are 128bits in the addresses? The idea is to avoid any use of NAT (that I definitly do NOT like), while using the capabilty of multiple adresses per intreface, IPv6 offers. One frequent benefit expected from private addressing (I agree it is more or less true) is related to use of non routing space, that is supposed to provide some security means. Since IPv4 enable to use only one address per interface, NAT becommes necessary for external communication. This limitation does not exist with IPv6, and just want benefit from it, that's all. One may imagine anenterprise network, for exemple, having nodes of local scope only (e.g. Intranetserver) and nodes needing both local and global > > > 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. > > If you are an ISP you have a TLA with loads of /64's. > Use those and apply some firewalling & non-routing to > create *globally unique* non-routable address space. > So if you merge/connect on day you won't have to renumber. > Sure, it is possible this way. But a globally non-routing space preventing any undesirable packet coming from the whole Internet, sounds much better. Regards, 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
