> > Eliot Lear wrote: > > Subject: Geoff Huston's draft and the intended use of > > the hinden/templin address space > > If the sole purpose of these addresses is for layer 3 > > connectivity as envisioned for LOCAL USE, then I would > > agree with Nir Arad that we do not have a problem. > > Same here, however I do not think we can talk in terms of purpose. The > peril of these addresses is precisely that they will be used to ways > contrary to their purpose, which needs to be taken into account. >
I would like to point out again, that as per my suggestion, nodes MUST NOT send, receive or forward traffic in which the source and destination addresses are not of the same scope. Thus, it will not be possible to use NAT on scoped addresses: Even if hosts would diverse from this specification and send packets from local to global scopes, they can not rely on routers inside the organization to forward it to the NAT at the edge. Thus hosts will naturally turn to global addresses for external communications. As for internal communications (here's another flame bait): I propose to prefer global addresses too. Only those "special, internal applications" that should maintain very long term connections at the transport layer should be a little complicated by allowing the user to prefer local addresses, thus addressing the debated stability issue. Hosts will be forced down to local addressing only if the destination has only a local scope address (e.g. an internal printer). Regards, -- Nir Arad -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
