Zefram,
>> Robert Elz wrote:
>> What we're lacking is any way to make a globally-scoped
>> non-routable address. That is, what gives us global
>> scoping in 2000::/3 (and most other unallocated spaces,
>> one presumes) is the routability - the two go hand in
>> hand.
> Zefram wrote:
> Here we're talking about two different things due to the
> two meanings of "scope". You're using the definition where
> scope = domain of routability. I should perhaps have
> clarified, I was using the meaning scope = domain of
> meaningfulness. Let's not rehash the debate about whether
> these are really distinct in {theory,practice}.
You just can't have two definitions and use one or the other depending
on convenience. Although it is true that in theory scope of
meaningfulness is not the same as scope of routability, unless you have
a proposal to make this happen they're the same for all practical
purposes. So I fully agree with kre when he says that what we're lacking
is any way to make a globally-scoped non-routable address.
I have said in the past that the only way we can "guarantee" that unique
addresses won't be transformed into PI is scope. In theory this is not
true as one might invent a scopeless mechanism to achieve this, but
without seing any signs or ideas about one it remains true for all
practical means.
Any attempt to remove ambiguity in private addresses that have a global
scope will be perverted into wild unaggregated PI which is not
acceptable.
Michel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
