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

Re: Application protocols and Address Translation

From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 16:06:53 +0100
Message-Id: <3DEB770D.8D7656C9@hursley.ibm.com>
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)?

Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 11:48:42 EST

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