On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 09:11:07AM -0600, Matt Crawford wrote: > > Except of those 14 some seven(?) are RFC3041 addresses, which break a > > number of applications... so there are some clouds in the sky. > > 3041 may be next on the hit-list. Pretty soon it truly will be > nothing but bigger addresses.
Personally, I like the concept of 3041, but it may have implications for applications that applications need to be aware of, e.g. if the app sends UDP data to a remote host on its global IP but is unable to match up UDP packets that may come in from the (different) RFC3041 IP of the remote host. Also, for example, I can't use RFC3041 and use my Windows XP box to web surf "anonymously" while also relying on per-host IP access control lists to a remote system. The "RFC3041 Considered Harmful" I-D expresses some other concerns, e.g. with DoS attack detection. Thus I think RFC3041 should be recommended, but only so long as there are per application userland controls on its use? One for the ipng list also... Tim
