On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 05:22:37 +0700, Robert Elz said: > What is the danger here, and why do I, the user, care? What I know is > that I want me local communications to just keep on working smoothly, > whatever happens to external connectivity and the addresses I get from > there. Right. You the user *don't* care. Users are almost never network admins. And the network admins presumably care (although with the amount of 1918 leakage we see, that's a dubious assertion as well). > | 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 | appropriate and must be withdrawn. > > Can't possibly work. How is it any different than any *other* prefix becoming not appropriate and being withdrawn? There's this big assumption on the part of the pro-site-local crew that we "need" a stable address. I posit that this is a crock, and that what we *need* to do is iron out the rough edges of IPv6 renumbering so hosts don't care *what* they have, as long as they have *some* prefix.
Attachment:
pgp00214.pgp
Description: PGP signature