On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 08:49:40PM +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: > > - it is not expected to be routable, however, it will be treated > as if it is a global address. therefore it is likely to be leak out. > 1.0 asserts that "even if it leaks out there's no conflict", but > "no conflict" is not enough - we do need to be 100% sure there's no > leak out, otherwise it is unacceptable.
I don't think we'd ever get 100% confidence of zero leakage, but that shouldn't deter us from having a site-local addressing scheme that at least cures the other major problem of ambiguity in the addresses. I think the Hinden draft can only fix the ambiguity problem. But if people use Hinden-draft the leakage is more readily traced. > some may object on the 2nd point, like "when I don't have IPv4 address > what should I do?". well, IPv6/v4 dual stack operation will continue > for ages so i do not consider it a problem. What about the ambiguity where the network is disconnected or intermittently connected and the site only has Net10 IPv4 addresses? The Hinden draft at least allows such networks to merge or temporarily interconnect for IPv6 with a good assurance of there being no address clash. Or are you suggesting you would always have to reconfigure for the Net10 clash anyway? It is also the case that many networks with an IPv4 address have a dynamic address, so your local IPv6 addresses would not have the desirable property of being stable (they are not "provider independent" unless the IPv4 address is also a PI one). I think any scheme defined now should be designed with IPv6-only operation also in mind. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
