On Saturday, Apr 19, 2003, at 18:22 Canada/Eastern, Robert Elz wrote:
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 17:51:19 -0400
From: Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu
Message-ID:
<200304192151(_dot_)h3JLpKuL019276(_at_)turing-police(_dot_)cc(_dot_)vt(_dot_)edu>
| 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