> Christian Huitema wrote: > > > >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.
So actually we want site-local scoping to remain so we can detect when there is a scope mismatch so the implementation can chose to have the connection fail? The danger I guess is that the site then hijacks a global scope address space to use internally so that the implementation will talk to external globally addressed hosts via a global-global NAT mapping? So do we gain anything? We would thus also have to put a "should not rewrite source address" requirement for devices in there too? Which many would just ignore... So I don't see we could ever stop NAT. Which leads to the conclusion that we must encourage ISPs to offer stable /48 prefixes (can the RIR policies help there?) even if that means an ISP with a million customers needs a /22 or similar rather than a /32 (allowing for HD-ratio), and let market forces take effect. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
