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

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Sat, 29 March 2003 13:43 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 IAA21135; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:43:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by ran.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 18zGiE-000190-00 for ietf-list@ran.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:49:34 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([10.27.2.28] helo=ietf.org) by ran.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18zGi6-00018Y-00 for ietf@ran.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:49:26 -0500
Received: from raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA21020 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:33:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pigeon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (ns1 [152.78.68.1]) by raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA04094 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:35:58 GMT
Received: from login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (login [152.78.68.162]) by pigeon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28174 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:35:58 GMT
Received: (from tjc@localhost) by login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TDZw107939 for ietf@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:35:58 GMT
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:35:58 +0000
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)
Message-ID: <20030329133558.GD7796@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <20030328084706.GC6825@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <200303281511.h2SFB72Y021166@gungnir.fnal.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200303281511.h2SFB72Y021166@gungnir.fnal.gov>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

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