I hate to rain on the parade, but... >> 1. ULAs will give enterprises the addressing autonomy that they >> seek (as RFC 1918 addresses do with IPv4) > > Correct. That's available today. > >> ; but that 2. Enterprises will NOT need to use NAT to make those >> ULAs globally reachable (instead using work going on in RRG). > > No. When a client system wants to go outside the corporate network, > it will need to use a second address that belongs to a globally > routable prefix. I still find the notion of "client system", as representative of anything typical for a computer on a network, to be very dubious. General purpose computers tend to function as clients for some protocols, servers for others, and for some protocols they may assume both roles. Especially in this day of widespread p2p and otherwise multiparty apps, it should not be assumed that an ordinary general purpose computer only functions as a client...not even when communicating with external hosts. I also think it's asking a lot to expect hosts or apps to know when they need to use a particular address or kind of address...though it might be reasonable for there to be a small number of special cases for critical, inherently local apps (if any such apps actually exist). > But there's no reason to care about whether that address has a > particularly long lifetime, so it really doesn't matter whether it's > from PI or PA space or whether it will change next time you reboot the > client. The application certainly has reason to care about the lifetime of an address that it chooses or that is chosen on its behalf...even if that application is only, for the moment, functioning as a client. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf