>>> Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: >>> ....and the day the utility company decides to >>> outsource the monitoring they will have to renumber >>> to global addresses anyway.
>> Michel Py wrote: >> Total nonsense. > Why? That would be the case i they wanted to connect > - which is not unlikely for the future. I know cities > in Sweden where building owners are monitoring the > utilities via public connections and I know places > where the road administration uses the public Internet > for monitoring devices. This does not add up. Monitoring is one thing, controlling is another one. If having probes that connect to the Internet is acceptable because these are read-only, and because there is nothing confidential in the data, fine. The devices that _control_ the flow of current or water, the plane surfaces, the reactor in a nuclear power plant are quite something else, and these are *not* on the public internet. > In you model they would use site-locals, but what > happens the day they connect to the public Internet? You don't get the point. The choice of site-locals is a deliberate choice of *never* connecting a device to the Internet. It's a design requirement, not a limitation. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
