> > better to have your own globally-unique, provider-independent
> > prefix (perhaps assigned by a registry)
>
> I do not see how this could work without blowing up the routing tables
This prefix would *not* be advertised into the global routing
table. You would have *other* prefixes for those machines that
wish global connectivity assigned from your access providers.
This is a prefix to replace the "site-local" prefix.
site-local private prefix
* globally routable NO NO
* locally routable YES YES
* privately routable NO YES
* ambigious YES NO
* DNS NO YES
* requires second YES YES
prefix for global
reachability.
* allows intra site YES YES
connections to
survive renumber
events
* requires renumber YES NO
on site mergers
Mark
>
> (CIDR 101)
>
> Scott
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
