Andrew, Would you mind if we put this sequence in the requirements doc?
Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew White > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 6:55 PM > To: IPng > Subject: Real life scenario - requirements (local addressing) > > > A 'real life' deployment scenario. > > (a) I set up a local network. I currently have no ISP, but I > want my network to 'just work' out of the box. This network > consists of (initially) three routers, plus other infrastructure. > > (b) Sometime later I decide I want internet connectivity, so > I connect to an ISP. I add my ISP provided address to my > network in addition to the address/es that are there already. > For argument's sake, let's say the ISP doesn't have IPv6 > capability, so I use a 6to4 address. > > I do not want my internal addressing exposed outside the > network, so I filter my addresses. I do use the ISPs > addresses for external connectivity. > > (c+d) Meanwhile, my friend has done the same thing, except > that his ISP DOES offer IPv6, so he has a 'real' IPv6 address. > > (e) We connect our two local networks together (either by VPN > tunnel or a wireless link - doesn't matter). We can now send > local traffic to each other, and out either ISP. > > (f) Sometime later I disconnect my ISP, and we use just his ISP. > > (g) Sometime later I disconnect my network from his. > > (h) Sometime later I register with a new ISP, and get a new > IPv6 prefix. > > > Salient points: > > (1) At points (a), (c) and (g) we have networks that are > standalone and have no connection to an ISP or the global > internet. Further, the networks in > (a) and (c) have never had such a connection. The users > don't want to have to register to get an address that works. > > (2) In (b), the external (6to4) prefix is unstable. Many > ISPs allocate a temporary IPv4 internet address, and change > these frequently. > > (3) The set of global prefixes valid for the network changes > over time. > (a) None > (b) #1 (my 6to4) > (e) #1 and #2 (friend's v6) > (f) #2 > (g) None > (h) #3 (my new v6) > > (4) The only 'reliable' address that the hosts in my network > have is the local one they started with. > > This example is quite similar to Tony's research ship > example, with the possible caveat that a research ship might > be big and organised enough to register with an ISP to get an > address space plus connectivity they never intend to use. > > > Consequences: > > - I need some form of local addressing that is not dependent > on anyone or anything connected to the global internet. > > - 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. > > - I want hosts in my network to prefer my local address > scheme when talking to other hosts in my network. 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). I want hosts in my > network to prefer global addresses when talking externally. > > - I want my local addresses filtered at appropriate borders, > preferably without having to set it up myself. > > - The ISPs probably want my local addresses filtered too. > > > Looks suspiciously like the filtered local address proposal, > doesn't it? > > -- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
