Hi Christian,
At 03:53 PM 4/4/2003 +0200, Christian Schild (JOIN Project Team) wrote:
I think it would be enough to come up with a BCP how to subdivide bits 11-48 in an intelligent way to prevent above. There were lots of ideas how this could be done on this list.
We do need to define some method(s) to produce unique, local, provider-independent addresses (i.e. MAC address-based or registry-based).
But, I don't think that we want those local addresses to have the semantics associated with site-local addressing, so I don't think that we should allocate them from the current site-local space (FECO::/10).
Most of the restrictions and complexities associated with scoped addresses in the scoped addressing architecture (can't be nested, can't overlap, need zone IDs to disambiguate, etc.) are required _because_ site local addresses are ambiguous. If you remove the ambiguity, why would you want to live with the restrictions?
Let's deprecate the current site-local prefix, and define a non-ambiguous model for local addressing.
Unique local addresses can, generally, be treated just like any other addresses. As long as we make sure that our method of creating uniqueness retains the property that a longest prefix match will result in using local address to reach local addresses and global address to reach global addresses, we shouldn't need any special handling for these addresses in hosts or 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
