Subject: RE: another renumbering question

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:22:17 +0100

> > I think there are two motivations for site-locals (that not everybody
> > agrees with):
> > 1. For sites that are isolated i.e. do not have a global prefix.
> > 2. To completely isolate traffic local to a site from 
> > site-renumbering events.
> 
> Let me add a third motivation - site-local addresses allow for very
> simple security policies or filters. For example the default
> configuration for a file server might be to provide service only to
> site-local clients.
> 
	=> Another reason, is the ability to discover 
	some "basic" services within a site. The DNS discovery
	draft has recommended the Site-local anycast address
	for this purpose. 

	Hesham
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: "Paul Francis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:53:21 -0800

> draft has recommended the Site-local anycast address

Yeah, anycast with site scope strikes me as a good use of site locals.  On
the other hand, DHCP provides an example of discovery with link-locals, so
there are other ways of doing it.

PF