Paul,
I am talking about a "laptop" that connects an arbitrarily-
complex internal network of virtual hosts and routers, and
an arbitrarily-complex set of external devices attached on,
e.g., Ethernet, Bluetooth, etc. I am attaching the diagram
again (slightly updated) in case folks might have missed
it in my earlier message.
So, it can't just be link-local-for-all, because then there
is no opportunity for off-link communications when in fact
the laptop may connect many links. Also, if my laptop ever
needs to connect up with other sites (be it planned or ad-hoc;
via phisical links or virtual) it will need to have something
like ULA-C to avoid collisions. And, I don't want to have to
inject a globally-routable prefix into the DFZ for it.
Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Vixie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 1:14 PM
> To: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt
>
> > Discussions on this list seem to indicate that globally
> routable PI might
> > not be attainable for very small sites such as my laptop.
> That would be an
> > example of where I can't get my own PI prefix, right?
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> on a site small enough to be its own network (like your
> laptop), i don't see a
> use case for addresses other than ::1/128. ("host-local" is
> a solved problem.)
>
> if you broaden your example to include multiple virtual
> operating systems each
> needing their own address so that they can communicate over a
> virtual bridge,
> then "lan-local" (fe80::/16) is available.
>
> if your laptop is joining an actual LAN (wired, wireless,
> etc) then it will
> have to have addresses assigned by that actual LAN's
> administrator, which might
> include both fe80::/16 and something else.
>
> it's in that final case where it's "something else" that the
> question of PI
> comes in. i don't think you're suggesting that your laptop
> have its own PI
> for self-communication, and i don't think you're suggesting
> that your laptop's
> PI ought to be connected by a routing protocol to the local network.
>
> at best your need for laptop-level PI would be so that you
> could perform
> routing over a VPN or tunnel whose endpoint was within the
> local (actual LAN)
> administrator's control.
>
> is this a use case worth pursuing for the purpose of defining internet
> technology to support it? because it seems to me that the
> mobile-IP folks
> have scratched out a plan for this which involves using on your laptop
> addresses assigned by the VPN hub, and speaking no routing protocol.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Egress Interfaces (to Internet)
^ ^ ^
| | |
+------------------------+---+--------+----------+
| Internal hosts | | | | M
| an routers | | .... | | A
| ,-. | +---+---+--------+---+ | N
| (H1 )---+ | | | E
| | `-' | | +------+--< T
| . | +---+ | | | |
| . +--|R1 |---+-----+ | | I
| . | +---+ | | Router +------+--< n
| | ,-. | | | . | t
| (H2 )---+ | Entity | . | e
| `-' | . | | . | r
| . | | . | f
| ,-. . | +------+--< a
| (Hn )---------+ | | c
| `-' +---+---+--------+---+ | e
| Ingress Interfaces | | .... | | s
| (to internal networks) | | | |
+------------------------+---+--------+----------+
| | |
v v v
Ingress Interfaces (to external networks)
Figure 1: MANET Router
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
