"Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|I believe this would be fine with many, as I can't recall anybody that
|supported site-locals doing it for the site-locals themselves but for
|what they provide, see below.
It's more a matter of supporting scoping and address selection rules for
what they provide. It doesn't matter what you call the local addresses.
|In short, I think that if there was a /32 allocated to private
|addressing, that is strongly labeled "do NOT route on the public
|Internet", we might find that most networks administrators could not
|care less about site-locals.
Assuming you still provide full support for scopes then I agree with
you. If you are talking about private address space without a scoping
mechanism to allow seamless integration with global address space then
it won't fly.
|In order not to make this RFC1918-bis, we also need a mention that
|strongly states that these addresses are not to communicate with the
|public Internet in any form or fashion; read my lips: no NAT.
Without functional scoping the only way to mix local addresses and global
access will be NAT. There's no sense trying to prevent it by decree.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
