Pekka Savola wrote: > ==> another disadvantage is that the sites should really be /48's to make > mergers with Internet global prefixes & addressing easier.
Pekka, In both Bob Hinden's draft and my (quite similar) version we are allocating addresses to *subnets*, not *sites*. And subnets receive /64's. The intent of the common idea in both proposals is to allocate a globally unique identifier to every subnet without regard to any higher level organisation. The only event that will change the subnet prefix is changing the router. The core disadvantages are: - Lack of aggregability (shouldn't be a problem until we start talking thousands or tens of thousands of links, which is a VERY big 'site'). - Doesn't allow for easily crafted 'well known' addresses (at which point you allocate these conventionally). - Changing router may imply fixing DNS mappings to cope with host address changes. The core advantage is that you can assign a unique prefix to every subnet without needing to know about anything other than the router interface that manages the subnet. In some environments this is a significant advantage. -- Andrew White [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
