Hesham Soliman (EAB) wrote:
> > > > => I certainly didn't mean to suggest that the IETF
> > > > has an enforcement authority. I meant that this words
> > > > are used in cases where: if not followed, the protocol
> > > > will break. Therefore people generally follow them.
> > >
> > > if SLs are used in an environment where applications > communicate
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > across scope boundaries,
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > => In other words, be careful how you use it. That's not
> > a reason to deprecate the use of site-locals altogether.
> > Their use should be confined to completely isolated > networks so that > they don't break applications. And yet this same > constraint was imposed
> on RFC 1918 and it didn't stop RFC 1918 addresses from > being misused.
> So yes, I think there's a compelling case for deprecating > SLs entirely.
> But I'd be happy to hear of a way to impose a 1918-like restriction
> that would actually work this time around.
=> It has a better chance of working this time because:
- No one expects addresses to become a scarce resource in our
lifetime anyway
- I haven't seen any plans by ISPs to charge based on the number of addresses.
So, I don't think it's quite the same problem as with
RFC1918.
I agree that scarcity is not the issue. Rather, the end user sees it as simpler to slap a NAT in the network and connect rather than go through and renumber the network.
Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
