ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents?

[Antonio Querubin]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, chuck yerkes wrote:

> Then I got a tunnel (was playing on internal net before),
> and had to renumber everything.
> By hand.
> That's when I learned about just having the gateway
> server provide the prefix and letting the machines
> set up their own addresss.
> 
> When I have to renumber again, I change the prefix
> at one machine and, next reboot, the machines are
> renumbered.  Like DHCP but static enough that the
> conflicts are only created per duplicate MAC address;
> that will happen never given that ethernet's lower
> layers will also have trouble with that :).

It seems like extremely inefficient use of subnet space just to avoid
address conflicts on the same segment.  It's a laudable goal but it seems
like a solution chasing after a problem already solved by DHCP or good
address management practices.  And DHCP hands out more than just IP
addresses.

In the bigger IP address management world I can think of other problems
that would arise using this scheme.  Of concern to me is assignment of
virtual host addresses and the problems associated with swapping ethernet
cards, routers, etc.  Maintaining a sane reverse DNS map sounds more
difficult.

> So, short answer: Number it what you want, but using
> the MAC address makes admin much nicer.

As long as its primary use is for link-local usage I can see it's
advantages.  But for global-scope usage any additional benefits seem very
limited.