Subject: Re: A simple question

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 19:05:10 -0400

On Saturday, Apr 19, 2003, at 18:22 Canada/Eastern, Robert Elz wrote:

>     Date:        Sat, 19 Apr 2003 17:51:19 -0400
>     From:        [email-masked]
>     Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>
>
>   | So if it's expected that both global and site-local addresses are 
> available,
>   | why are we bothering with making things more complicated?
>
> Because we need stable addresses for local use.
>
> Something tells me you've never actually lived in an environment where 
> your
> global address changes moderately frequently.   If you had, you 
> wouldn't
> be so quick to ignore this need.

The rhetoric would have us believe that frequent renumbering with IPv6 
is seamless and effortless. I don't personally buy that, but there are 
some assumptions there that perhaps should be challenged more directly 
rather than in this oblique fashion.

If we accept the premise that frequent renumbering in IPv6 is not 
seamless and is in fact painful and worth avoiding, then rather than 
hiding the source of the pain behind a NAT perhaps we should try to 
eliminate it: find a mechanism which facilitates pervasive multi-homing 
with some stable view of layer-3 addressing from the layer above, 
across re-homing events.

That would solve multi-homing, session stability across renumbering 
events and changing providers all in one hit.

There's a party going on in multi6, and you're all invited. (well, 
we're all in the kitchen at the moment, but we'll move out onto the 
deck if more people show up).

Joe

---

From: S Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 03:04:41 -0400

Simply to say that renumbering is bad, does not therefore imply that 
site-local is good.

SL may be sufficient to work around the renumbering problem but is it 
necessary? There is not substantial basis as yet in this discussion for 
anyone to make that claim.

simon

--
www.simonwoodside.com -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel