> I think site-locals could be used here, with a single rule that they're > simply the least preffered prefix used in address selection. > > Whilst the boat is in a port, it receives a global prefix which is > advertised on appropriate subnets. Before leaving port the prefix > is deprecated (but not removed), thus there would be no break in > communications. It can be removed several days later safely when it's > no longer in use.
Tony's requirements seemed to say that ship-local communication must never break. I took that to mean imply in your example that the deprecated prefix can never be invalidated. And that would cause problems when the boat arrives in another port. > This doesn't just apply to huge boats, what about a private yacht? > This is another zero-conf issue, it has all the same problems as the > research boat (getting connectivity via different providers depending > on which port they're at) except that the owner may not have his own v6 > prefix, or even know what IPv6 is! Give specific requirements the way Tony did for the research ship and we can analyse the options. His requirement was that ship-local communication not be impacted by the ships connection and disconnection to the Internet. What requirements do you have in mind for the yacht? > Finally I don't agree with your tunnelling solution at all (sorry it > got <snipped>) . I would rather NAT and have a 10ms RTT insetad of 200ms, > and if I would NAT here (I hate NAT!) then I think lots of other people > would too. Tunnels are complicated NAT is easy... I think we have to agree that we disagree on that one. Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
