On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > Could you elaborate a bit more? > > Are there particular problems that would be caused by > limiting the use of site-local addresses to non-globally- > connected networks?
I believe often an issue here is that OS/application vendors can just bind all the local services to nodes' site-local addresses, and make the security someone else's (ie router vendor, because site locals must not go out of the site) problem. Needless to say that sounds pretty much like "NAT protection" today.. Pekka > At 12:53 PM 10/24/02, Richard Draves wrote: > >This is craziness. We (I don't mean just MS) have shipping > >implementations that support site-locals. We have operational > >deployments using site-locals. We have applications that work just fine > >with site-locals. > > > >Rich > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > >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] > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
