Eliot, > Eliot Lear wrote: > Subject: Geoff Huston's draft and the intended use of > the hinden/templin address space > If the sole purpose of these addresses is for layer 3 > connectivity as envisioned for LOCAL USE, then I would > agree with Nir Arad that we do not have a problem.
Same here, however I do not think we can talk in terms of purpose. The peril of these addresses is precisely that they will be used to ways contrary to their purpose, which needs to be taken into account. > If on the other hand, as Geoff states in his draft, and some > people seem to be implying, that these addresses could be used > as some sort of end point identifier outside of the routing > system, then we do have a problem. Note that as author of a two-space locator/identifier protocol I do not share this point of view. There is a need for a private address prefix that is completely separate from the prefix used for end-point identifiers. Among other things, I fear that using private addresses as end-point identifiers for global traffic will lead directly to NAT. Conceptually, the endpoint identifier is like a PI address, which it targets to replace. The only reason for the separation between endpoint identifiers and locators is that it enables a reduction in routing table size, _not_ because it wants to blend the identifier with the private address. These are separate animals. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
