> Margaret Wasserman wrote: > But, what I don't understand is how the use of > overlapping site-local addresses on globally-attached > networks is any better than NAT.
It's not as bad (does not break apps that embed port numbers in the payload, for example) but this is an irrelevant argument: it still is bad. As I said before, it seems that everyone agrees that a globally unique site-local would be the way to go, but there are two major roadblocks to remove on that path: - Make sure that site-locals are not globally routable (I posted some comments about this earlier) - Solve the multihoming issue. Only when these are solved will we be able to move ahead towards globally unique, not globally routable site-locals. In the meantime, the crusade to remove site-locals is futile and a waste of everyone's time as 1. they have reached previous consensus and 2. will continue to be used until a better mouse trap is available. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
