Re: Site local

["J. Noel Chiappa" <jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>]

    > From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>

    > there is an interesting development in the IPv6 working group: they
    > reached consensus it is a good idea to look at globally unique,
    > non-routable (although this part was immediately challenged) address
    > space

Hoo, boy, is this a dangerous move in policy terms. You can bet people that
get those addresses will set up a hue and cry about "why can't they be
routable globally"?

    > If large enterprises can use this type of address space for all their
    > internal stuff, renumbering becomes much easier as there are no
    > security issues

I don't know about that - don't you still need globally routable addresses for
all machines that want to talk to the rest of the Internet - which I would
think would be most of them (or is everyone's desktop machine getting to the
Web through an intermediary)?

    > In my opinion, this along with host-multihoming solutions should be
    > enough to lower the need for multihoming by injecting a globally
    > visible /48 into the routing table a good deal.

Well, there's another possibility. This fits nicely with 16+16 type
multihoming (where the inner address is your globally unique "host
identifier", and the outer address is currently the place to send you
packets); the inner address could be from this space.

Of course, you still have to examine all the issues with who adds the second
header, and when and how, and all the security issues. But most of those are
inevitable in *any* scheme which has two separate namespaces...

	Noel