Subject: RE: Taking two steps back

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 18:33:04 -0800

Andrew,

> Andrew White wrote:
> This is why I find the idea of generating an entire
> /64 prefix per subnet without needing ANY interaction
> beyond the router so attractive. Why should humans be
> doing work that the routers can do themselves?

We are not talking about each individual subnet, but about the initial
/48 that would seed the subnets.

Be realistic: zero configuration does not exist. When you take the
router out of the box, you will get into it to change the default
password and put your domain name in. Don't tell me that typing a SL
prefix at the same time is much of an administrative overhead.

I'm not too hot about zeroconf for site-locals. As several other persons
contributed, we should not make site-locals too easy. Zeroconf for
global prefixes, great.

That being said, I do see a need for SL autoconfiguration.

There is enough room in FEC0::/10 to have both a range for random/hash
autoconfiguration *and* one or more ranges for people that want truly
unique prefixes.

When initially configuring the site-local prefix, the user must have the
choice of:
1. Manual entry.
2. Contact prefix serving service (Charlie's style).
3. Autoconfig with hash/random.

Looks better?

Michel

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------