] Naiming Shen wrote: ] ... ] > though i'm absolutely against to have routing/dns ] > support to SL. ] ] SL's have to be routed within the site anyway, and probably have to be ] in local DNS to be of any use, which pretty much forces the use of two-faced ] DNS to avoid accidentally exporting them. ] ] In other words, the only sure way to avoid routing and DNS support for SLs ] is to abolish them.
this assumes there will not be any need for private addresses in v6. otherwise, taking a random address block has the same issue. not only it needs two-faced DNS support, but also it could be leaked out in routing accidentally(people after use them for a while, will think its their legal address block; your peers will not automatically filter those announcements), people may randomly take microsoft.com's block and can't get their dirver updated anymore, etc. thus random block certainly is not better than a well known address block. but if this list is sure there is no need for private addresses, lets abolish them completely, not just from the special routing support sense. cheers. ] ] 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] ] -------------------------------------------------------------------- - Naiming -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
