> As part of a multinational project we are planning a network. The plan > is to construct a private network, connected via methods including tunnelling > through the 6Bone. > > I envisioned using a site local netowrk, but concensus seems to be to allocate > some real addresses, and then make them unroutable from the 6Bone. Is there > any benefit do doing it this way rather than just sharing out a site-local > address and treating it as a multi-campus site?
Here are some things that I can think of, off the top of my head. You would remove the ability for components of your network to use their own site local addressing - they have to get networks allocated by your global "site-local" address registry. One of the advantages of site-local addressing seems to be that site administrators do not have to do much to get hold of site-local address space. If you are planning a multinational network, I assume that you will have to have a large central registry of site-local prefixes - this registry would be equally capable of allocating global prefixes. You say that you want the network to be private - will this be forever? Is it utterly inconcievable that your network would ever want to interconnect with the rest of the internet? If this happens, you have to go through and configure all your devices with globally routable addresses (although you should be able to map very easily between site local and a /48 global allocation). As your would have no upstream provider, I'm not sure where you would get globally routable space from? Perhaps someone else on the list can comment on this. For anyone who wants to connect hosts/routers to your network as well as to the main IPv6 Internet (as you talk about tunneling through the 6bone, I that there will be a lot of people with such connectivity): use of site local scope in software at the moment seems less developed - if someone has a device connected to your site and to another site through which they are connected to the 6bone, it is awkward/impossible at the moment to specify which site is meant. Using global address space removes the problem. In the future, this will probably be tidied up. DNS: If you are using DNS, you would have to put site-local addresses in DNS. I don't think this works well for multi-site machines - all the DNS returns is an address, without any indication of site. You cannot allocate more than 65536 networks, and that is assuming that you can allocate them all and don't use a heirarchical allocation system. With global, you can get more prefixes, and could, if need be, get a shorter prefix than /48. My gut feeling is that global address space is more appropriate for this. -- Ben Clifford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hawaga.org.uk/ben/ Currently seeking employment in Los Angeles: http://www.hawaga.org.uk/resume/ IPv6 only webserver at: http://edge.ipv6.hawaga.org.uk:81/ben/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- The IPv6 Users Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe users" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
