EricLKlein wrote: > > Christian Huitema wrote: > > > Andrew, the draft has provision for both "registered unique local > > addresses" and "probably unique local addresses". The registered unique > > addresses are not valid on the Internet, but they definitely will not > > collide with other addresses. > > 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.
There is no way to get a unique prefix without a central allocator (i.e. a registry, whether it's human or a robot). That's the reason for using the word "escrow" to describe the way the registry retains its information. > 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. The Hinden/Haberman addresses are not theoretically reachable. They are (like RFC 1918 or FEC0::/10) theoretically unreachable. Their new characteristic is unambiguity, which experience with RFC 1918 has shown is very necessary. The usual warning about the difference between theory and practice applies in all these cases, of course. > > 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. Please read the draft. This cannot happen. > > 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. The only real differences are that you get unambiguity, which is a MUST from RFC 1918 experience, and you lose the woolly concept of site scope, which we don't know how to use. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
