On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 03:41:37 +0700, Robert Elz said: > Is not true for site locals, as no-one anticpiates that a SL address is > all an enterprise will be using (unless it is not connected to the > internet, in which case questions of its flexibility of access don't arise). > > For internet access, a global address is used. Sites (and hosts) have both. So if it's expected that both global and site-local addresses are available, why are we bothering with making things more complicated? > Similarly: > > | Once one commits to using a private address, one is committing to > | renumber part or all of an enterprise, > > is not true of SL addresses, as one doesn't "renumber" them, one just > augments with a global address. That's exactly *why* they're broken - if you've suddenly had a global address show up, there's now a danger of leaking a local address, so it's not safe to use site-local anymore. > | I'm afraid that unless site-local includes a 'MUST renumber' requirement > | for *BOTH* cases, it's a complete and total non-starter in my book. > > IPv6 requires renumbering when an address that has been used is no longer > appropriate (which will generally be because of changed topology, which > may be local topology changes - moving a host to a different LAN, or global > ones - connecting to a different provider). That is the only reason. > As long as prefixes remain usable, they can keep on being used, with other > prefixes added as required. Well.. all you need to do to fix this is to make a rule that if a global prefix becomes available, the site-local prefix is no longer appropriate and must be withdrawn. This *still* leaves the problem of using site-local behind a NAT, though.
Attachment:
pgp00213.pgp
Description: PGP signature