Christian Huitema wrote:
This simple suggestion will in fact prevent using SL in the NAT scenario,
It will prevent _Standards Compliant_ client implementations from using NAT, but as we both know many vendors loosely interpret standards in any case.
You don't get the point. If enough hosts come programmed to enforce scope restrictions, then the non compliant product ends up with a deployment headache and has to be fixed. This is basically the root of Internet standards -- enforcement by peer pressure.
The Globally addressed peer hosts when a communicating host is behind NAT are talking to another Global peer address at the NAT agent.
This only requires complicity on the NAT box and the host, not the peer communicator. The proposed requirement provides no further burden to implementors than NATv4 systems.
Greg D.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
