I think you're missing Alain's point. If a host happens to have 2 addresses at a given moment, one left over from the disconnected state and one with the recently available connected prefix, either address will work fine for internal usage, and of course only the second one will work for external usage.
This does lead to DDNS and 2 face DNS, but that's where we are heading in any case. Brian Jeroen Massar wrote: > > 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 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. > > 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? > > > 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. > > Same goes for non-TLA holders, nobody claimed that > the assigned space should also be routed. > > </repeat> > > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
