Keith Moore writes:
> not true. in order to understand whether there's a potential
> address conflict you need to consider the transitive closure of all
> connections available to all hosts on the network. if the same address
> refers to different hosts anywhere in the network then it can still
> cause problems for apps doing referrals even if the meaning of that
> address is well-defined for every individual host.
In trying to formulate an answer to this it occurs
to me that there's a better question to ask: if it
is inevitable that we need PI space for
disconnected networks, then do you concede that we
will end up with (a) NAT's and (b) route growth
(due to advertizing /48's) for people who decide
to get and (ab)use them?
I've seen nothing which would dissuade me of that
notion, and plenty of evidence in the here and now
that that's exactly what will happen. Since IPv6
does not have an adequate solution for renumbering
-- and any such solution being the path of least
resistance is highly dubious -- are we not in the
same situation as IPv4 with respect to the
inevitabilty of NAT's since global PI is
inherently self-limiting due to route growth?
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
