Todd, > Todd T. Fries wrote: > Either you have link-local addresses, or you have > global routable addresses.
>From a transit provider point of view this is true, but not for the enterprise. There are lots of large networks that require private addresses and use RFC1918 today. Examples that have been discussed before are a large cruise ship and utility companies. Part of the requirements is that private addresses must not be routed on the public Internet. > Any attempt at providing something that is site local suggests > to me that you open the doors wide for something like NAT, > which of course none of us wants. There is some truth to this, but in the end avoiding NAT will not be achieved by not providing site-local addresses, as they are not required per say; people that need them will simply hijack an unused block in the middle of nowhere in the IPv6 address space, like they did for IPv4 pre RFC1597/RFC1918. A good hijack candidate is 2002:RFC:1918, for example. The only way to avoid NAT is to provide what NAT does, which is portable, globally unique, globally routable addresses, which we don't have today. > There is enough address space in the global table, Wrong. There is enough address space today, but the global routing table cannot handle billions of entries, at least not with BGP4+. It's not a matter of memory, it's a matter of stability. > why can we not have some sort of free reservation system > (the free tunnel brokers would suggest it is economically > feasible) for sites that want local addresses but do not > intend on globally routing them. jj has proposed something like this not too long ago. A draft soon? 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
