And what about privacy then ? I agree there is a balance between privacy and features, always, but ...
Regards, Jordi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Templin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ralph Droms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 4:43 AM Subject: Re: Some IPv6LL operational experience > Hi Ralph, > > I think I'm beginning to notice a trend in these discussions. There seem to > be strong arguements against site-local addresses, link-local addresses, > multi-addressing, and even "limited-range" addresses such as those > proposed in the Hinden/Haberman draft. Without any of these options, > it seems to me that all we would have left to consider would be globals. > > But, how can a host get a global if it comes up in an ad-hoc network with > no router? The only option I can see is for the host to have a "burned-in" > global address that comes from, e.g., a centralized addressing authority and > is assigned, e.g., by the manufacturer, by the user's manual configuration, > etc. So, the global would be just like a MAC address in this sense - right? > This would all be fine, but we are hit once again with the question of > how this would impact routing scalability. Any ideas? > > Fred > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Ralph Droms wrote: > > > > > > > At 10:00 PM 8/21/2003 -0700, Tony Hain wrote: > > > >> This is a clear capability & advantage that IPv6 brings over IPv4. > >> The only thing holding it back is the obstinate views of those who don't > >> want to make the scenarios work. After-all they don't work in IPv4, > >> so they > >> must not be really needed, right??? > > > > > > Tony - (assuming "they" == IPv6LL) can you explain why IPv6LL will work > > while "they don't work in IPv4"? My experience with IPv4LL has been > > uniformly bad; I've never intentionally used an IPv4LL address and the > > automatic assignment of an IPv4LL address has on several (many?) > > occasions > > silently interfered with my ability to assign a non-LL address and use > > greater internet connectivity. I will admit ignorance and am happy to > > hear > > success stories about IPv4LL. > > > > I don't know that some folks "don't want to make the scenario work". I > > don't understand the advantage to IPv6LL from the scenario you described. > > We can assign IPv4LL addresses today in a one-link, no router ad-hoc > > network. But we have to enter the addresses manually and those addresses > > get in the way when full Internet connectivity becomes available. What's > > different with IPv6LL? > > > > - Ralph > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > ***************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit Presentations and videos on-line at: http://www.ipv6-es.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
