Hi Tim,
Not to pick on you... You are making some excellent points, and I want to make sure I understand them.
And, I have serious doubts that they will ever scale. But, if that is the case and we are going to be forbidden from seeking other solutions that involve site-local addressing and renumbering then we have one hell of a pickle here.
Can you explain how site-local addresses and renumbering will actually solve the route scaling issues in IPv6 and simultaneously avoid IPv6 NAT? If so, I certainly wouldn't want to forbid it... I think it is extremely likely (virtually certain) that, unless we can come up with a better way to achieve provider independence, we will get site-local addressing used behind IPv6 NAT boxes (like RFC 1918 addresses in IPv4). People are employing IPv4 NAT today to get provider-independence, and I see no reason to believe that this will change in IPv6 unless we come up with a better (less technically damaging) answer. But, obviously it won't do any good to come up with an answer that destroys the routing system... In the meantime, though, I am afraid that we will force the use of IPv6 NAT (by continuing with our PA address allocation policies), when there is currently no immediate concern regarding scaling of IPv6 backbone routers. Margaret -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
