- From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 16:06:53 +0100
- To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
- Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org
Eliot Lear wrote: > > Patrik, > > 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 > site-locals: > > Totally disconnected networks. Insert "or intermittently connected with a variable prefix" and that's it. But this argument has been beaten to death on the IPv6 lists. The question is, what are the applications-specific arguments against translated addresses? What are the brokenness conditions caused by translated addresses (and the associated statefulness)? Brian
Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 11:48:42 UTC