Tony, I don't much appreciate the subject field (although "avoiding NAT" was indeed bogus). But I hear of daily operational costs caused explicitly by ambiguous "private" addresses that suddenly stop being private in reality - in other words, the notion of private scope is itself bogus in the general case. We get rid of one layer of problems if we get rid of the ambiguity built into RFC 1918 and of SLs as currently defined.
Deprecating SL as currently defined is not a vote for the flat earth theory. Brian Tony Hain wrote: > > Michael Thomas wrote: > > ... Scoped addresses as have been pretty well > > demonstrated take us down some pretty scary paths. > > This sums up the whole anti-SL campain, which is spread FUD based on one > technically valid point; applications can't arbitrarily pass around > topology information. Applications that insist on passing around > topology information must understand the topology they are describing. > If they don't understand it, they are broken. Trying to assert a > flat-earth will not make it happen. There will be filtering, therefore > there will be addresses with a limited scope of applicability. Scoped > addresses will exist with or without a dedicated prefix. Lack of a > well-known prefix only makes more work for the system manager to > manually configure devices. It will be a sad outcome for decades to come > if we trade off the one-time per app cost of a developer needing to deal > with a well-known prefix in favor of the continuous operational cost of > manual configuration. > > Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
