At 10:26 AM 8/7/2003 -0700, Tony Hain wrote:
> Right now I cannot find a single application where locally scoped > addresses give > me anything worth the effort. Those are my 5 cents - since > you asked for > details :-)
Wait, you started off by saying that you really need to filter and keep some
addresses local use, but then turn around and say you don't have any
application for that. Which is it? We agree there is no need for you to have
ambiguous addresses, but you appear to have a requirement for range limited
addresses because you intentionally filter. Getting back to the question, is
not trusting the hosts the requirement?
"Range limited addresses" could mean two things here: (1) Addresses that inherently have limited range, or (2) Addresses that effectively have a limited range, because the entire address is filtered at some boundary.
There is also a third alternative... Port/Address filtering. It may be that a particular address has limited range on some ports, and is globally accessible on other.
So the fact that someone uses filtering does not necessarily imply that they have a need for addresses that inherently have limited range.
I was just about to draft a reply when I read this excellent one. This is exactly
the point I was trying to make.
Cheers Leif
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
