On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:49:03 CST, Matt Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Let's assume that there is a FooBar server in SiteA. If another > > node in SiteA (NodeA) is communicating via a multi-party application > > to a node in SiteB (NodeB), and wants to refer NodeB to the FooBar > > server in SiteA, what does it do? > > I thought we agreed, completely outside of IPv6 concerns, that > shipping addresses in application data was bad. So NodeA refers > NodeB to foobar-server.sitea.org. Q.E.F.
Yeah, we can agree all we want, but RFC959 still has a PORT command in it. And until we've managed to move *all* the dain-bramaged applications to Historical status, we're stuck with it. And sometimes you have no *CHOICE* - if you're not shipping addresses around, what *do* you put on a DNS A record? This isn't facetiousness - it's a real concern. You can pass a hostname around instead of an address, and when you look it up, you get back either a unique address (which you can run with) or a site-local address (which you can't). That's why RFC1918 has the prohibition against leaking private addresses into the DNS. And let's face it guys - site-local is nothing but 1918 space on anabolic steroids. You thought it was hard to handle now, wait till it comes back with a full blown case of "roid rage"....
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
