Using myself as the example...
Does anyone else find it sub-optimal that we are spending so much time arguing about what address bits should be used for local addressing when we have yet to gain consensus on:
- The requirements for local addressing?
- The best technical mechanism(s) to meet those
requirements?
- Whether we need local addressing at all?Let's figure out what we really need, and _then_ argue about the specifics of where to put the address space.
Did anyone want to comment on Tony's requirements document and/or propose an alternative set of requirements?
Margaret
At 11:02 AM 6/7/2003 -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
At 03:46 PM 6/6/2003 -0700, Bob Hinden wrote:I still have a small preference preference for using FC00::/7 for the globally unique local addresses due to the larger global ID, instead of reusing the FEC0::/10 prefix. But either would work.
The problem with using FECO::/10 for these addresses is that there are implementations that include special semantics to handle the ambiguity of FECO::/10 addresses, such as requiring a Zone ID to disambiguate FECO::/10 addresses, setting up separate routing tables for separate FECO::/10 zones, etc.
In Bob's proposal, addresses are globally unique (although they may not be globally routed), so we don't need special semantics to handle the ambiguity.
Margaret
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
