> Pekka Savola wrote: > - if we specify global-scope GUPI's they will also be used > when regular global-scope addresses would be better > (and we should encourage PA addresses, because they > actually _work_); ie. they will cause trouble and may > eventually result in prefix/address translation > NAT-like) problems.
Agreed. > - if we instead specify site-local, near-unique addresses, > folks still treat them as site-locals; they are used less > than GUPI's would be, in site-local contexts only. > Near-uniqueness removes the problems with ambiguity of > site-locals. Agreed. > - I think it's better to deal with reality (provider > assigned addresses) than try to escape it (provider > independent addresses), even though how enticing it > could be... Agreed. That being said, I think you miss the target by thinking that "near unique" will be less enticing than "truly unique". If the risk of collision is very low, people will try to use it as global PI. > Following my thinking, site-locals could of course be used > as an aid for e.g. renumbering or intermittently connected > sites, but that should be better than having delusions that > using global-scope addresses there would somehow make such > addresses "global" or "globally usable". Agreed, but we also need to think about the scope of GUSL used to create a VPN between organizations. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
