Mika, Mika Liljeberg wrote: > > On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 14:52, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > If they do that, they will have ignored the health warnings > > we will put on the RFC. > > Seeing as a good many of those networks will be residential, some of > those network managers very probably will not know about any health > warnings (having bought the zero configuration home gateway box and WLAN > base station from Wall Mart). What I wanted to point out, though, is > that network merging might not be the most common collision scenario by > a fair margin. > > I would prefer it if the use of semi-unique local scope addresses were > restricted to non-connected networks. For any connected network you can > assume that the network manager is able go to some registry website and > grab a guaranteed unique prefix.
Ideally, yes. But that doesn't solve all the real world problems - see the Hain/Templin draft. Brian > > MikaL > > > Mika Liljeberg wrote: > > > The "application" is wireless connectivity to network XYZ, where the > > > network manager of network XYZ controls the choise of the address space > > > used. Multi-access basically stands for simultaneous access to multiple > > > different networks, possibly under different administration. I.e., the > > > terminal is effectively a host participating in multiple sites at the > > > same time. Since we can't control the network managers, we simply have > > > to assume that some of them will choose to use limited range addressing. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM NEW ADDRESS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
