Subject: RE: apps people? Date: Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 05:27:50PM -0700 Quoting Tony Hain ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Who said I was forcing the end user behind a NAT, though I agree it creates > a single point of failure. There appears to be a lot of IPv4-centric > single-address-per-interface thinking going on in this thread. Just because > some nodes in a network are using addresses that are not globally routed > does not force other nodes to forego use of globally routed addresses. That > is the IPv4 model of the world. Multi-addressed IPv6 nodes can > simultaneously use limited range and globally routed addresses for different > destinations.
I fail to see why you need scoped addresses for this. When I want my printer
to stay off the net, I remove the default route. Done. All the benefits of
site-local, and none of the scoping. Yes, it is reachable by UDP -- correct.
But it can neither reply, nor should it be connected to a network
if bad things happen when you give it UDP packets that it can't
reply to. The solutions for this, though, are grossly off-topic -- more
appropriate work for those apps people who have left ipng believing
that the SL ghost is gone for good and all is well.
The only reason to have non-unique, unroutable addresses is if there was
a shortage. Heck, people even claim that there is v4 space in abundance.
How can then, pray tell, v6 benefit from it?
--
M�ns Nilsson Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC
MN1334-RIPE
I just remembered something about a TOAD!
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
