> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ... > > I am working on an application that works accross addressing realm > > bondaries. > [...] > > That nasty stuff causes all kinds of real world trouble > > just a couple of messages ago you were claiming that the discussion was about > moot theories and now you're claiming that it causes real world trouble. > which is it?
It's not a moot theory that NAT/site local addressing causes real world problems. The academic (in the bad sense of the word), ISO style moot theorizing is the repeated haranguing about the evils of NAT and site local addresses and the implication that the IETF could issue an edict and prevent their use in (or near) an IPv6 Internet. > > So why are you only repeating what you've said many times before instead > > of writing an RFC that will repudiate and replace BCP 5? > > the reason I repeat these things once in awhile is because a significant > fraction of people still don't get it, and they're hindering progress. Here progress is measured only by published RFCs. Repetitions of your inflammatory litanies of the evils of NAT and site local addresses prevent progress. Every replay resets things to the start of the "we gotta have them; no we don't; you're ignorant and wrong; no you are; you're so clueless that you use Windows; no you are and your mother too" groove. I doubt there is anything that can be done about NAT and site locals, but one thing is clear. Your repetitions prevent progress as much as the manipulations of the IETF's bureaucratic machinery by your moot debate opponents....no, "debate" is wrong. When I was an academic debator, the judges allowed only a fixed number of fairly short opportunities to speak. You claim that you do the IETF a service by replaying your old position statements because people are ignorant, stupid, illiterate, and didn't understand before. Do you really think that makes sense? > the reason I don't try to repudiate BCP 5 is that it's clear that for IPv4 > we're out of addresses, and you can't really solve the problem in IPv4 > any other way except to move to another address space. Let's assume that's true. Where is your I-D for a BCP against site local addresses for IPv6? I dislike NAT and site local addresses in theory and practice. I'm not volunteering to work on an anti-site-local BCP because I have no hope that it could affect the real world, and because I don't have a good enough alternative for site local addresses. That application of mine and every other real world application will have to deal with NAT and site local addresses forever. Life Sucks, but I've not found an alternative I prefer. Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
