Brian E Carpenter wrote: > EricLKlein wrote: > > > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > Well, I'd hoped to avoid that question until we had mailing list > > > consensus on deprecating SLs. > > > > > > > I would tend to say that we are a long way from consensus > about SL's.
That is the understatement of the day... > > Tony's draft (http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/site-local.txt) > makes a good case for globally unique provider independent > addresses with a non-routeability option. It would be > interesting to know if we have consensus about that. Keep in mind it was a quick hack from prior email, so there may be other points that people want addressed. > > IMHO it doesn't make a case for SLs in their present > incarnation (i.e. ambiguous address space). There is a lot of > operational pain in ambiguous address, once you start > building VPNs between business partners or otherwise merging > "private" networks. I think we should also seek consensus > that ambiguous addresses are unacceptable. I agree ambiguous addresses are unacceptable for some purposes, but that does not mean all uses are invalid. Maybe the real problem here is that we only provide a site controlled address space that is ambiguous. If we had a PI space, I believe there would be no need to argue about keeping/deprecating the ambiguous space. It sounds like your issue is with the logic about prefering the short /10. If we dropped the logic and added a flag in the RA to indicate the prefix applications should prefer to cover the intermittently connected case, would you still have an issue with the ambiguous addresses existing? Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
