Markku Savela [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > From: "Jeroen Massar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Global addresses, good, and where did you need a SL for again? > > Well, just for fun, I keep using SL for internal connections. One > never knows when my global connection may break or change prefix, at a > whim of ISP. Or maybe I have two ISP connections, one is cheaper > during day, other cheaper during night, and I just alternate between > them. Great example for a use of multihoming. Also who says your prefix becomes 'instable' when you swap it from the night to the day ISP? Also if you swap your ISP without multihoming it will break connections to the rest of the internet, read: rest of -> non site local. I don't see the need for site-local here either. I do see the need for PI/multihoming though. Maybe you are mixing 'global' a /48 (site-global :) with site-locals? > > Indeed 'just pick some random address' if you don't want to > > be connected to the rest of the world. No need for SL. > > Also E20 or a similar amount is peanuts compared to what it > > would cost if you need to renumber your complete site. > > Hmm.. maybe this could be my retirement job. Can I be the > "registrar"?. It might be nice cash flow for very little work. It could be indeed, go set it up. Why do you think that the domainname business is so good? Virtual money for virtual bits! Thats why there has been so much contraversy. But some entity needs to regulate it. Also you 'rent' the domainnames/space, you do not own it. > > Indeed global addresses. Where did the need for SL go again? > > > > Still no reason for keeping SL's... > > Still, can keep them in spec as is. > > - nobody forces you to use SL's on your site, if you don't want. It's > just an option for those who think they can take advantage of it. True, bad it is also a bad option that will cause many problems. You might see the problems ahead but $manager won't. And that's why there needs to be a replacement for this. > - applications do not need to care about them. They just SL's as any > other address. That would be a good thing. But how are you solving the: AL talks to BL and B passes A's address to CG case? Or are you talking about completely disconnected sites again? > - IPv6 stacks have already been impelmented based on scope > addressing. There is the source address selection rules, also > implemented. It hurts noone to keep the current spec AS IS. See the case above and the numberous of other problems presented througout the thread and in the presentations. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
