> Keith Moore writes: > > > I agree 100% with Micehls' point - assigning unique IDs to sites for use in > > > site-local addresses moves the site-local addresses into a globally > > > routable address space, with the additional feature that those addresses > > > are provider independent. The result would be an address space that is > > > site-local by (potentially unenforceable) executive fiat rather than by > > > technical design. > > > > this sounds like a feature to me, because it would allow hosts using > > such addresses to have their traffic routed between sites without NAT. > > > > private addresses were a bad idea; we should not repeat them in v6. > > So it seems to me that what's at issue here is what > is the lesser of evils.
I think this is a bit over-simplistic. Just because an address prefix is globally unique does not mean it will be widely advertised in routing tables, especially when such prefixes are easily distinguished from globally-routable prefixes. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
