Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I don't see how this can be true in general. > > Here is an example using referrals; the three nodes involved are A, B, > > C. Node A and B are in the same site, have both local and global > > addresses, and C is in a different site. > > > Node A and B are communicating using these local addresses. > > In particular, B contacted A using FQDN(A) and the naming system > > somehow so that they ended up communcating with local addresses. (My > > understanding is that part of the benefit of these local addresses is > > that local communication prefer using local addresses over global > > addresses.) > > Yes, but how??? > > A simple method would be to check the first 48 bits of the IP addresses > that are suspected of having "local" reachability. But this doesn't > allow for the merging of two sites, which was presented as a rather > prominent requirement during the site local wars (or at least the part > I got to witness).
I don't see this is a problem at all; any given address on a host may only be able to reach a subset of destinations, whether it's a site-local address or not. The only way to be sure is to try them all and see which works; if the working one happens to be a site-local, who cares? S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
