On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 14:52, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> If they do that, they will have ignored the health warnings
> we will put on the RFC.
Seeing as a good many of those networks will be residential, some of
those network managers very probably will not know about any health
warnings (having bought the zero configuration home gateway box and WLAN
base station from Wall Mart). What I wanted to point out, though, is
that network merging might not be the most common collision scenario by
a fair margin.
I would prefer it if the use of semi-unique local scope addresses were
restricted to non-connected networks. For any connected network you can
assume that the network manager is able go to some registry website and
grab a guaranteed unique prefix.
MikaL
> Mika Liljeberg wrote:
> > The "application" is wireless connectivity to network XYZ, where the
> > network manager of network XYZ controls the choise of the address space
> > used. Multi-access basically stands for simultaneous access to multiple
> > different networks, possibly under different administration. I.e., the
> > terminal is effectively a host participating in multiple sites at the
> > same time. Since we can't control the network managers, we simply have
> > to assume that some of them will choose to use limited range addressing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
