[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ... > such a policy would also make it dysfunctional. it's > completely bogus for such devices to impose constraints on > how a network is designed.
I am talking about default. If you want to change the policy to allow global access you should be able to do so, but there is no reason we should create an open dos problem when we don't have to. > > if a device is only going to recognize one RA prefix, it should > probably be the shortest prefix that it sees. Since they are all /64, that doesn't cut it. > > ... > oh right, so we need to configure each application to be > aware of network topology to know when to use and when not to use SL. Your input channel was shut down long ago. I was not arguing that the app know about network topology, just that it is aware of its own ability to deal with scope boundaries or not. If an app knows there are failure modes when crossing scope boundaries, it should have an option that prevents it from getting into that state. This is nothing more than a flag that says 'this socket must be considered global scope'. > > ... > so far there is at most one case where it is a good choice - > providing a way for local connections to survive renumbering. > and there are almost certainly better ways to solve that > problem - defining explicit values for minimum time between > renumberings and maximum time that a connection should be > expected to stay up would be a good start, and they wouldn't > be specific to local connections. > > > The fact that there are other cases which are valid is > being ignored. > > we're still waiting to hear about them. Your input channel is off. Despite the validity of the assumption, network managers want the ability to have some devices addressed in a space that can't be globally routed. The kinds of apps you are worried about don't apply. > > > If someone wants to write a BCP that says SL > > should not be used for multi-party apps, fine, but this doc > should not > > go further because other uses do not share the problem. > > no, it's the other way around. if someone wants to impose > the constraint that large portions of the network should only > support client-server apps then they need to bear the burden > of convincing the rest of us as to why it's in the best > interests of the Internet to have such a constraint. Peer-to-peer apps can use SL, as long as they are 2 party. When an app is willing to deal with more than 2 parties, it knows that and should have a means to refuse SL addresses if there is an alternative. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
