Subject: RE: Enforcing unreachability of site local addresses

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 08:26:20 -0800

Margaret,

> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> I would like to see us assign PI addresses just like all
> other global addresses and route them globally.
> However, I don't think that we can responsibly do that
> and claim that the route scaling issue is SEP.

Agreed.

> Is there any reason to believe that we _can_ actually find
> a scalable way to route to "portable" PI addresses?

Not at this time I'm afraid; we do have a draft for globally routing
geographical addresses but it is not scalable long-term; a transition
mechanism, or a fail-safe.

I mentioned PI addresses earlier as identifiers in a dual space
identifier/locator solution. They would be routable locally and between
sites, but not globally (or limited routing).

> It seems like we may need some consultation/cooperation
> between the multi6 group and the IPv6 group, to see if
> we can come up with a full solution to provide scalable,
> routable PI addresses.

Multi6 is not chartered to develop solutions. This point has been made
in Atlanta again. The development of multihoming solutions has moved
outside the IETF a year ago.

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

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 21:45:58 +0100

> outside the IETF a year ago.

...and I still argue that we don't even understand the problem, yet we 
are already talking about solutions....

- kurtis -