Keith Moore wrote: > > > - I need some form of local addressing that is not dependent on anyone > > or anything connected to the global internet. > > no, you need some form of globally unique address that isn't dependent > on having an external internet connection.
Nor on needing an external registration procedure. I'd like to be able to turn my router on and have it all just work. (Side point: hence why I favour using the router's MAC rather than my birthday and current system time to generate the network prefix. The former is hard-coded into the router and unique - the latter requires user intervention). > > - I need this local addressing unique enough that I can safely join my > > network and my friend's network together and allow them to swap > > prefixes. > > agreed. > > > - I want hosts in my network to prefer my local address scheme when > > talking to other hosts in my network. > > you've not shown any justification for that. what do you care what > addresses are used as long as the traffic doesn't escape and/or the > hosts that you don't want to be accessible from outside your > network, aren't accessible from outside your network? When that 6to4 address goes away, I don't want my persistent sessions to be forced to maintain a stale address. > > I want hosts in my network to > > prefer one of the local schemes when talking to hosts in my friend's > > network (since I don't want the packets to leave 'our' network). > > again, you haven't show any justification for that. it's far easier to > filter global addresses than to filter local ones. *boggle* Am I the only one that finds this claim nonsensical? > > I want hosts in my network to prefer global addresses when talking > > externally. > > why not have them use global addresses whenever possible? it makes the > applications MUCH simpler... Because (in the current context) there's no such thing? A local address is an address that promises to be filtered. A global address is an address that makes no promises. > > - I want my local addresses filtered at appropriate borders, > > preferably without having to set it up myself. > > sorry, that's not going to happen. how are the routers supposed to know > which borders are appropriate without being configured to know? you've > already suggested you'd like the same set of "local" addresses to > be routed between your network and your friend's network. On my 'home router / gateway' I have one port coloured red and placed on one side of the box. This says 'uplink'. The other ports are on the other side of the box and are labelled 'internal'. The rest follows from there. Especially since all my 'home router / gateway' boxes are using a common prefix for generating their internal addresses (say FD00::/8). Note that I either don't have or don't use the 'uplink' port on internal routers. It's not REALLY that difficult. -- Andrew White -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
