[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: alternatives to site-locals? (Re: CONSENSUS CALL: Deprecating Site-Local Addressing)

Markku Savela [mailto:msa@burp.tkv.asdf.org] wrote:

> > From: "Jeroen Massar" <jeroen@unfix.org>
> > 
> > If someone doesn't want/like this they can pick a random number
> > and use that, they still have to renumber when they interconnect
> > to another site or the internet.
> No, when you interconnect, you just keep using your global addresses
> in parallel with site locals.
> Despite claims of opposite, this combination works just fine.

Example.com: fec0::/10
Example.org: fec0::/10

Good luck in tossing the bits around to routers in between those sites
Not even speaking about when you have internal webservers:

www.example.com fec0::1
www.example.org fec0::1

Even NAT won't help you here...
Or is it suddenly 'allowed' to use the global address ?
Then where did you need those site locals for again?

What you need is a globally unique /48 that is disconnected
and which one should be able to register 'cheaply'. Eg
an annual fee of E20 or something just to make sure that
not everybody starts harvesting them. The /32 from which
these /48's come (or fec0::/10 could be a great candidate)
should never be routable/announced onto the internet.


IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com