W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > December 2002

Re: Application protocols and Address Translation

From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 02:08:29 -0800
Message-ID: <3DEB311D.8030703@cisco.com>
To: Patrik Fltstrm <paf@cisco.com>
CC: discuss@apps.ietf.org


You are precisely correct, that the use of RFC-1918 address space was 
meant for those devices who were envisioned to never attempt 
communications either through the Internet or even beyond a single 
administrative realm.

That having been said, there seems one legitimate argument left for 

Totally disconnected networks.  You need to use some address, and you 
might as well autoconfigure on site-local.  So long as addresses are 
"provider assigned" (and that looks to be the case for the forseable 
future), if you don't have a provider, you don't have addresses.

There is no security benefit, there is no need to "save" addresses. 
Ultimately registry and provider policies will cast the deciding vote in 
this battle.  If registries are too restrictive with v6 address space, 
you can expect to see heavy use of site-local.  That would be stupid, 
but there you have it.

Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 05:09:25 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tuesday, 24 February 2004 19:46:22 EST