- From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 02:08:29 -0800
- To: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
- CC: discuss@apps.ietf.org
Patrik, You are precisely correct, that the use of RFC-1918 address space was meant for those devices who were envisioned to never attempt communications either through the Internet or even beyond a single administrative realm. That having been said, there seems one legitimate argument left for site-locals: Totally disconnected networks. You need to use some address, and you might as well autoconfigure on site-local. So long as addresses are "provider assigned" (and that looks to be the case for the forseable future), if you don't have a provider, you don't have addresses. There is no security benefit, there is no need to "save" addresses. Ultimately registry and provider policies will cast the deciding vote in this battle. If registries are too restrictive with v6 address space, you can expect to see heavy use of site-local. That would be stupid, but there you have it. Eliot
Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 05:09:25 UTC