Pekka, > Pekka Savola wrote: > What I'm trying to say is that we need to first figure out > where we need local-use applications -- and, as an interim > feature, maybe reword the current draft so that it's > apparent which current perceived local-use scenarios > require specific requirements.
This appears to me the opposite of what is generally done within the IETF. First we write requirements then we look at specific scenarios, not the opposite. Besides, at this stage of things it is generally admitted that a broader view is useful in describing the problem in context. >> which is one of the reasons that eventually led to RFC1597. >> What makes you believe that the reasons they did it in the >> past do not exist anymore? > And what problems has this caused that are really, really > problematic? NAT, in the first place. > On the other side, I fail to see the need to hijack a > prefix for your running system. IPv6 addresses are quite > obtainable nowadays if you're an equivalent of LIR. Doubly irrelevant to the discussion: first, you can't ask every network to become a LIR; second, the need for public addresses and local addresses is totally different, so even if one enterprise has become a LIR to obtain public addresses it does not remove the need for private ones. > In addition, compared to the situation back in 1994 (and > earlier), people actually use Routing Registries to check > advertisements. You really cannot assume that you could > hijack a prefix and have it work in the Internet. I have live examples that use NAT for that purpose and some other people have contributed the same here. You did not answer the question. The question is not why network administrators are wrong to use local addresses. Wrong or not, and whether you like it or not, they have, do and will use them. Putting your head in the sand or stating that there are no reasons to use local addressing is not going to change it. There are extremely large numbers of networks that currently use local addressing; RFC1918 is not what created this situation: to the contrary it is a by-product of their widespread use and created well-known prefixes for them. What makes you thing that the requirements of all these networks have changed? Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
