Margaret, > The primary differences between IPv6 unicast site-local addresses (FECO::/10), > as defined today, and PI addresses are: > > 1. Site-local addresses are intentionally ambiguous. > 2. Sites may not overlap or be nested. > 3. Sites need to be convex, constraining their boundaries > to routing area or AS boundaries. > > Most of the implementation complexity comes from #1 and, IMO, we would be > much better off with an unambiguous form of local addressing. There are > a few proposals for MAC-address based versions or unique IPv4-address > based versions. We could also ask registries to provide globally unique > provider-independent addresses for this purpose. Perhaps there are other > choices. I am not actually a proponent of the "random > choice" model, BTW.
I think that the disambiguating site-locals to a certain extent may be advisable (if we do keep them). However, I actually think that one of the attaction of NATs for users is that NATs provide ambiguous addresses. Even if we disambigated site-locals (or GUPIs or whatever) I don't that would kill the interest for ambigious addressing. What I would hope would be for some better controls on ambiguous addresses. Can we provide clear rules on their use and applicability? In addition, I also agree with you the "random choice" model - I think that such a solution would cause more harm than good. br, John -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
