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

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 09:11:07AM -0600, Matt Crawford wrote:
> > Except of those 14 some seven(?) are RFC3041 addresses, which break a
> > number of applications... so there are some clouds in the sky.
> 
> 3041 may be next on the hit-list.  Pretty soon it truly will be
> nothing but bigger addresses.

Personally, I like the concept of 3041, but it may have implications for 
applications that applications need to be aware of, e.g. if the app sends
UDP data to a remote host on its global IP but is unable to match up UDP
packets that may come in from the (different) RFC3041 IP of the remote host.

Also, for example, I can't use RFC3041 and use my Windows XP box to web
surf "anonymously" while also relying on per-host IP access control lists to
a remote system.

The "RFC3041 Considered Harmful" I-D expresses some other concerns, e.g.
with DoS attack detection.

Thus I think RFC3041 should be recommended, but only so long as there are
per application userland controls on its use?

One for the ipng list also...

Tim