> I'm assuming that for the intents and purposes of replacing > "local" site-locals, "nearly unique" site-locals would be enough.
Not quite. You should get the slides of Rob Austein presentation to the working group. We must really separate two issues, reachability and ambiguity. It is very easy to ensure that a block of address is not reachable -- any firewall can do that. But just because an address is unreachable does not mean that they could just as well be ambiguous, because these ambiguous addresses end up leaking in various places: DNS records, source of ICMP packets, next hop in BGP messages, "received" headers in mail or "via" headers in SIP, etc. In short, buggy addresses appear at places where they should not. Ambiguity causes problem, because you can never debug these problems. I realize that we have a tension between two requirements, uniqueness which imposes some form of registration, and "free use" which imply making up the addresses locally and virtually guaranteeing possible collisions. Maybe we have to embrace the dilemma, and allow for several types of identifiers, some guaranteed unique and some quasi random. But you must definitely provide unique numbers to those who are ready to wait for registration. -- Christian Huitema -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
