IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> Wed, 02 April 2003 23:14 UTC

Received: from ran.ietf.org (ran.ietf.org [10.27.6.60]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14961; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 18:14:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by ran.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 190rcw-00087X-00 for ietf-list@ran.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2003 18:26:42 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([10.27.2.28] helo=ietf.org) by ran.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 190rbd-0007yD-00 for ietf@ran.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2003 18:25:21 -0500
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14489 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 18:08:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h32NAmA01710; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 18:10:48 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 18:10:48 -0500
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: Brian Zill <bzill@microsoft.com>
Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, jeroen@unfix.org, spencer_dawkins@yahoo.com, ietf@ietf.org, ipv6-fb@microsoft.com
Subject: Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))
Message-Id: <20030402181048.61182ceb.moore@cs.utk.edu>
In-Reply-To: <CB7153628BD3724096258CBFD70AA8910753BD5B@red-msg-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <CB7153628BD3724096258CBFD70AA8910753BD5B@red-msg-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> 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.

> I do, however, also remember a discussion on one of the IPv6 mailing
> lists about this, and it seemed that there were several members of the
> IPv6 community at large who thought it was great that we weren't
> currently supporting them.  Apparently there are those who think
> hard-coding IP addresses (of any version) in URLs is a bad idea.

yes, there are those who think that it's desirable to force all apps to
suffer the delays and unreliability of DNS every time a connection is
established. they are deluded.

Keith

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email