On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 08:37:39AM +0200, EricLKlein wrote:
> 
> I am still have 2 concerns with these concepts:
> 1. People do not want to register their secure internal network nodes (bank
> central computes etc) so the "registered unique local addreses" may not meet
> their needs. They do not want to have even theoritically reachable addresses
> on a Cash machine or other secure node that needs to be connected as part of
> the private network.

So they can use addresses from the probabilistically unique range under
the space fd00::/8.  There is, in terms of raw usage, no difference between
using fd00::/8 or fec0::/10.   External networks would still have to route
the prefixes back to you for you to be reachable, which is just as hard/easy
under either system.
 
> 2. For the "approxiamtely" or "probably" unique local addresses I am
> concerned that these addresses will eventually be assigned as part of the
> registered addresses and can then be in conflict with "legitimate" nodes.

No, the registered address space is under fc00::/8.   The two spaces are 
distinct, as per section 3.2 of 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-01.txt

It'll be many, many years before additional space needs to be allocated for 
these local address types.
 
> So between the 2, I do not see a solution that will work better than a
> RFC1918 type of address space. The more I hear about these options the more
> I want to bring back site local addresses.

Well, addresses under fd00::/8 and fd00::/8 can be used locally just like 
site-local addresses, only they have the nice property of significantly 
reduced (probabilisticly unique) or complete removal of (registered unique) 
ambiguity, so I don't see where your concern is?   

It is not unlikely that people will be lazy and just use fd00::/48 for sites, 
and thus add back in great ambiguity to the probabilisticly unique address 
space.  

Tim

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to