> Tony Hain wrote: > There are uses for 1918, and life would have been good without NAT. > We need to keep the real problem child in focus and not blame 1918 > for the transgressions of NAT.
I agree. > Service providers and network managers clearly know the boundaries > of their routing complex, and may find that using SL is a reasonable > mechanism for SNMP and other management traffic, much as they use > 1918 now. SNMP is a good example. In a large network, it is desirable (for operational purposes) to have numbered and routable addresses on each interface and a routable loopback interface as well. The loopback interface is used mainly for administrative and management purposes. If it is desirable to have public addresses on interfaces (for traceroutes), it is equally desirable to have a private address for the loopback, as the outside world has no business with it. Translation in the ipv6 lingo: private = site-local. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
