Fred Templin wrote:
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Robert Elz wrote:
There are also those who will always prefer to use local addresses over
global, regardless of what is available. I'd have global addresses
available everywhere, and use them only when that's the only thing that
works (when routing cannot get other addresses to work).
True.. in certain deployments, this has some merits.
Deployments that expect to encounter intermittent global connectivity and/or
frequent renumbering events may be better served by preferring local use
addresses over global.
Fred
Kre, Fred,
I will argue that prefering global scope (when available) will _generally_ result in having better chance of connecting. Yes, I agree with you, there are _some_ cases where this is not true, but those are not the _general_ case in the Internet. What we are talking about here is setting up default. (The I of IETF stands for Internet, not for local networks.)
On another note, we have shipping IPv6 products. I think is is getting very late in the game to invent yet another address format that nodes are supposed to recognize and give priority to.
Please, keep things simple.
- Alain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
