On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Tony Hain wrote: > Naiming Shen wrote: > > ... > > 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. > > The point is that those commenting against SL don't run a real network.
I resent this statement. There were several speakers, which I believe, *do* run real networks. I think I do so too. > There will be filtering done in real networks. I don't think anyone disputes this. > This filtering creates > addresses and/or prefixes with a local scope of applicability. IE: There > will be local scope addresses in any case. But the real question is whether these local scope addresses need to be treated any different than the others. IMO, the obvious answer seems to be "no, why on earth??" > The only question is if we > have a well-known prefix that everyone filters on, or random values that > require explicit n-way coordination. N-way coordination is not necessary for the disconnected case. And when you connect, "default deny" at your ISP will block you from using your random block or if the ISP doesn't do it, your return packets will be routed to some unsuspecting guy and you'll change your addresses. I see no problem. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
