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

Re: Moving forward on Site-Local and Local Addressing



Alain Durand wrote:

> IMHO, what need to happen is the following:
>
> -1. Make an in-depth study of the consequences of introducing
>      addresses with different ranges. 

How would this different from the material that has been presented 
already in the SL debate?  The whole anti-site-local argument is based 
around the consequences of a scoped addressing architecture that people 
don't like.

> -2. Realize that if the issue at stake here has more to do with 
> getting addresses
>      than with their actual scope/range, something probably can be
>      done working with the registries.

I don't think that is true.  The local-ness of these addresses avoids 
the issue of having to scalably route the PI space.  I can't see 
significant differences in process between globally unique local address 
allocation and a globally unique PI address allocation.

- aidan


--------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------