Leif Johansson wrote: > Yet another old argument. I remember several opposing voices > from the SL > debate.
Appearing to be primarily from service providers. By my count most of the no voters were from edge focused people. > I am running a large edge network. I have both PI and PA v4 and yet I > don't see > the need for site-locals. So is all of your space is globally routed without any filtering or exclusion from routing protocols? Not everyone is in such a lucky position to have all of their network globally exposed. > I think it is time to drop the "silent > majority" argument. > > What edge-network do you run? Currently an insignificant one, but in past lives I have been involved in both large scale edge and core network management. The point is not what you or I think about the need for local addressing, it is about what the manager who can't get PI space is going to do. Insufficient resources to justify PI space does not invalidate their need for internal network stability. In the absence of NAT, allowing the ISPs to renumber customer networks at a whim will ensure 'address-portability' becomes a hot button. We can help mitigate what would become random PI by providing local stability. We can go further by providing a 'less-than-perfect' PI. PI will solve most of the requirements for local space, but by definition can't deal with the requirement to avoid accidentally becoming part of a routed aggregate. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
