IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)

Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> Fri, 28 March 2003 04:40 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 XAA04032; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:40:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by ran.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 18ylo8-0006tk-00 for ietf-list@ran.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:49:36 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([10.27.2.28] helo=ietf.org) by ran.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18ylnx-0006rm-00 for ietf@ran.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:49:25 -0500
Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03929 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:33:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18ylbA-0000Iq-00; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:36:12 -0800
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:31:23 -0500
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)
Message-Id: <20030327233123.23014e69.moore@cs.utk.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20030328000734.GL19349@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <DAC3FCB50E31C54987CD10797DA511BA026A00C2@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <200303271508.h2RF842Y017814@gungnir.fnal.gov> <20030327182201.6016865c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E838BCF.E4588B1A@iprg.nokia.com> <20030327185101.5dc02d39.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030328000734.GL19349@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (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

> As a side-note, a fifth SL option was presented "out of the blue" in SFO,
> namely exclusive SL/global addressing (one or the other only), which,
> because it was rather a "broken" idea, I think perhaps added to the room
> sentiment that site-locals are broken (rightly or wrongly :)

well, it was something that hadn't been suggested yet, so I don't blame them
for trying.  but what became clear after looking at all of the different ways
of limiting usage of site local side-by-side is that every way of restricting
site locals still leaves us with a mess.  the only set of restrictions that
avoids leakage and/or requiring apps to be aware of network topology is to use
SLs only on isolated networks, and experience with RFC 1918 strongly indicates
that this doesn't work well in practice.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email