RE: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))

2003-04-03 Thread Jeroen Massar
John Stracke wrote: Jeroen Massar wrote: Ad-hoc networks are another similar case, where two machines are connected via ad-hoc wireless, bluetooth, firewire, or similar. In any other way do you like remembering and typing over 128bit addresses?? :) :: is your friend. If you're

Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE:site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))

2003-04-03 Thread John Stracke
Jeroen Massar wrote: John Stracke wrote: Jeroen Massar wrote: Ad-hoc networks are another similar case, where two machines are connected via ad-hoc wireless, bluetooth, firewire, or similar. In any other way do you like remembering and typing over 128bit addresses?? :)

Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: sitelocal addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))

2003-04-03 Thread John Stracke
Keith Moore wrote: Then there's the problem that when a 800-pound gorilla ships code, that code largely defines expectations for what will and will not work in practice - often moreso than the standards themselves. Strange as I feel defending Microsoft, I actually think it's commendable that

v6 support (was Re: Thinking differently about the site localproblem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to theInterNAT...)))

2003-04-03 Thread Keith Moore
Then there's the problem that when a 800-pound gorilla ships code, that code largely defines expectations for what will and will not work in practice- often moreso than the standards themselves. Strange as I feel defending Microsoft, I actually think it's commendable that they

Re: v6 support (was Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)))

2003-04-03 Thread Steven M. Bellovin
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Keith Moore writes: Then there's the problem that when a 800-pound gorilla ships code, that code largely defines expectations for what will and will not work in practice- often moreso than the standards themselves. Strange as I feel defending Microsoft, I

Re: v6 support (was Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)))

2003-04-03 Thread Eric Rosen
Steve I can't get upset about Microsoft declining to ship poorly-tested Steve code. Given how many security holes are due to buggy, poorly-tested Steve programs, I applaud anyone who takes that seriously. Well, suppose they were to ship IPv6 without IPsec, on the grounds that they didn't

Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))

2003-04-03 Thread Fredrik Nyman
On 2 Apr 2003 at 18:10, Keith Moore wrote: The lack of IPv6 literal address support in the version of wininet.dll that shipped with Windows XP was for reasons of engineering expediency, in other words, MS deliberately shipped a broken product. Oh, look, release notes, known issue

Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE:site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))

2003-04-03 Thread Keith Moore
The lack of IPv6 literal address support in the version of wininet.dll that shipped with Windows XP was for reasons of engineering expediency, in other words, MS deliberately shipped a broken product. Oh, look, release notes, known issue statements, bugtracker entries... Seems