Subject: RE: Regarding site-local addresses

From: Brian Zill <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:01:53 -0800

Hi Peter,

I don't think there is a problem here.

> Hmm. There's a tiny hole in this argument in that
> there is a possibility that a customer might want
> a largish intranet that traverses sites.

Well, as currently defined, a "site" can contain 65,536 subnets.  Define
largish :-)  I don't foresee that a single intranet will ever exceed that,
but if so, there are 38 unclaimed zero bits to the left of those 16.  I
suppose we could explicitly reserve them now.

> I think there probably should be an in-between
> solution that by default is not routed between
> routers, but if needs arise such a switch can 
> be turned off should a customer need the facility.
> Leaking would be minimized because you
> would explicitly have to enable the feature.

Well, if router vendors make it the default for links to be in different
sites unless specifically configured otherwise, you have the equivalent
today.

Thanks,
--Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Peter Tattam <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:35:26 +1100 (EST)

> suppose we could explicitly reserve them now.

Arrgghhh... silly me.  I think I have site local and link local addressing
mixed up.  My counter argument was based on the premise that widely dispersed
routers might not want to easily route site local addresses.  If this can be
guaranteed to still work, I can see no reason why specifically defined site
local addresses should continue to exist, and that what has been done so far
should have no problem.

How about a "hands up" for all those who have worked with net 10
style addresses.

For me, I don't have a problem.  They serve their limit purpose well.  I feel
that I would be deprived if they were no longer available.

> sites unless specifically configured otherwise, you have the equivalent

Peter

--
Peter R. Tattam                            [email-masked]
Managing Director,    Trumpet Software International Pty Ltd
Hobart, Australia,  Ph. +61-3-6245-0220,  Fax +61-3-62450210

---

From: "Matt Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 09:27:14 -0600

> local addresses should continue to exist, and that what has been done so far

Now I have no idea at all what you are saying.

> How about a "hands up" for all those who have worked with net 10

Yo.  I've used nets from the 192.168.0.0/16 block where link-local
would have been appropriate, and from 172.16.0.0/12 where site-local
would have been appropriate.
					Matt
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------