Leo Vegoda wrote:
On 25 Jun 2007, at 1:17pm, Scott Leibrand wrote:
PI space is *not* available, *at any price*, to small sites.
How many of these sites that are too small to qualify for PI space are
likely to have such a large number of inter-site connections that
there is a credible risk that there will be an address clash?
I don't know. I do suspect, however, that the main benefit of ULA-C
over ULA-L will be the ability to resolve DNS, rather than the
additional assurance of uniqueness. Even with a relatively small number
of inter-site connections, it is much easier to have your DNS resolvers
(which presumably have a public IP address as well as a ULA one) walk
the DNS tree rather than manually configuring them to slave off of each
other site's DNS servers. (I would compare it to doing all your
inter-site routing with static routes instead of using a routing protocol.)
-Scott
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
