Keith Moore writes:
> > Quick question - you have been nay-saying on local-use addressing for
> > as long as I can recall, but do you truly have an alternate proposal
> > that will work for intermittently-connected/disconnected sites,
>
> disconnected sites - should use some sort of PI space - either
> globally-unique or probably-unique
So I have a question: what does "disconnected"
really mean? Does it mean people who do not have
any internet access whatsoever and never will? Or
does it mean people who want parts of their
network to be either physcially or through
firewalling to be disconnected from some or all of
the net?
If it's the former, maybe I'm heretical but do we
really much care? Back in the bad old days that
led to what what's been morphed now into the
"documentation prefix", but 10 years ago
disconnection from the Internet was pretty much
the norm... today though? Should we really fall
all over ourselves for individuals/organizations
that don't want to pay $9.95/mo and get a PA /48
that they can use to number their disconnected
network?
If it's the latter... a /48 gives 16 bits of
subnets. Surely that's enough to carve out a
network or two for their disconnect networks. And
even if they changed providers... so what? If
it's a disconnected network using the old prefix
certainly doesn't _hurt_ anything until... you
want to connect it, but if you want to connect a
disconnected network you needed to renumber
anyway!
What am I missing?
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
