[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Site local

To: "Tony Li" <Tony.Li@procket.com>
Subject: Re: Site local
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 11:03:27 +0100
Cc: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian@hursley.ibm.com>, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com>, <multi6@ops.ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <D2EC481073504E498A8DB9C0687E8CAF04D2280D@EXCHANGE0-0.na.procket.com>

|   The idea of globally unique locals came up in IPv6 for a
|   different reason-
|   to allow intermittently connected networks to have stable internal
|   connectivity *and* to establish VPNs or to merge with other similar
|   networks. Bogus security arguments were not used.


So the real need is for globally unique identifiers and the locators
are to be specified in the future?

This is the wrong list but I will go for it anyway....

..I am behind on email due to flu but one thing I haven't figured out in this "GUPI" thread....what would be the difference to the PIs we have today? Aren't we trying to work around RIR policy with address architecture?

- kurtis -

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Site local
  - From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>

References:
- RE: Site local
  - From: "Tony Li" <Tony.Li@procket.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Router solutions
Next by Date: Re: Site local
Previous by thread: Re: Site local
Next by thread: Re: Site local
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread