On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 06:59:19PM -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > If the consensus to deprecate them does not hold, I'm not quite sure > what we are going to do... We certainly don't have consensus to do > any further work on site-locals, and it isn't clear how we can > ever finalize the scoped addressing architecture without some type > of decision on this issue. Perhaps we can break out the non-contentious > parts and advance those parts? >
It seems to me that the way out of this is to find some mechanism by which site-locals can be considered reasonably unique. I think it would be sensible to define several different mechanisms for this (perhaps each with a different prefix) as cases can be made for choosing uniqeness based on time, geography, mac address etc. e.g. geographical prefixes allow a degree of control and aggregation, time or mac-address prefixs are more suiteed to zero-conf etc If they're recommended and easy to use then I see no reason why network managers would choose not to use them, as it's a benefit for them. I admit I'm not an expert with regards to the scoping issues here, but personally I don't see that these private-unique prefixes need to be given any special treatment other than that they're the least preferred prefix used. Personally I do not give the "site locals + nat will be used because re-numbering is hard" argument much credit, that's a re-numbering issue not a site-local one. I think it's reasonable to expect an "ipv6 renumber" command in routers, at least if re-numbering is going to be a major concern, and for DNS I'm sure something similar can be done. Well that's my take on it anyway :) Cheers, Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
