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

["Jeroen Massar" <[e-mail]>]

Tony Hain wrote:

> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> > I believe that you have misunderstood my point...  I'll try 
> > to explain further, although our friends in the applications 
> > area may be able to give better examples.
> > 
> > Let's assume that there is a FooBar server in SiteA.  If 
> > another node in SiteA (NodeA) is communicating via a 
> > multi-party application to a node in SiteB (NodeB), and wants 
> > to refer NodeB to the FooBar server in SiteA, what does it do?
> 
> Send a name.

Not all addresses are published in DNS.
DNS isn't a requirement for IP either.

> > If this is IPv6 with site-local addressing, NodeA may be 
> > speaking to the FooBar server using a site-local address.  
> > What happens if NodeA sends that site local address to NodeB?
> 
> Any app that sends topology locator information without understanding
> the topology is broken.

<SNIP>

Thus RFC959 is broken? There goes my favourite transfer proto :)
And there are enough applications that are broken then.
Actually all the applications that need special processing
when traversing a NAT as those apps 
If those apps didn't pass an IP(/port) combo inside then
they wouldn't need special treatment by the NAT either.

We are actually getting to:
  Use a unique identifier that is topology independent.
Wasn't that where IP Addresses where meant for? A unique
address independent of topology...

Greets,
 Jeroen