Re: Site local

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> 
> > |   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?

Firstly, we have no PIs today in IPv6. If you're referring to pre-CIDR
IPv4 prefixes, I think the difference is that people believe the scaling
issues with the DFZ will severely limit the ISP's ability to route
non-aggregatable IPv6 prefixes, however much money they are paid to do 
so.

No, we aren't trying to work round RIR policy. RIRs are our friends
and their policies have always been developed in close contact with
the IETF community. Trying to work around them would be a monumental
example of shooting oneself in the foot. If we invent a *viable*
scheme for PIs, I would expect the registries to be the first to
cheer.

You are of course 100% correct to warn against the illusion that
inventing a nice looking addressing scheme changes anything in
the underlying mathematics of aggregation.

   Brian