Tim Chown wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 04:15:36PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > 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. > > So is it actually having a recommended prefix for disconnected networks > that's the issue, or having special scope prrocessing for a specific prefix, > or both? :) I think this is what Alain is indirectly asking/suggesting.
When IPv6 began, it was certainly the disconnected sites argument that made me happy with site locals; but we hadn't thought through the scope issues or the issues of intermittently connected sites, and both of those are messy enough that I am now against site locals. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
