IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Måns Nilsson <mansaxel@besserwisser.org> Mon, 31 March 2003 21:02 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 QAA24303; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:02:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by ran.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 1906c1-0001yH-00 for ietf-list@ran.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:14:37 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([10.27.2.28] helo=ietf.org) by ran.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 1906bd-0001v4-00 for ietf@ran.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:14:13 -0500
Received: from slimsixten.besserwisser.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA24051 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:57:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.besserwisser.org (mansaxel@localhost.besserwisser.org [127.0.0.1]) by slimsixten.besserwisser.org (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2VL06ew013388; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:00:07 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:00:01 +0200
From: Måns Nilsson <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>
To: ietf@ietf.org
cc: 'Christian Huitema' <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>, 'Keith Moore' <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))
Message-ID: <43450000.1049144401@localhost.besserwisser.org>
In-Reply-To: <3E88A268.4010309@cisco.com>
References: <077601c2f7be$e0fcdc70$ee1a4104@eagleswings> <3E88A268.4010309@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (OpenBSD/x86)
X-PGP-KEY: http://vvv.besserwisser.org/key
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="==========1848539384=========="
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk


--On Monday, March 31, 2003 12:17:44 -0800 Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
wrote:

>> Since the address block is ambiguous, routing will assure that if you
>> reach a node it is the correct one. This FUD needs to stop!
> 
> 
> Right up till the point where two companies start communicating with one
> another directly with site-locals.  Even if there is a router frob to
> keep the scopes scoped, you can bet it won't be used until someone
> realizes that the above problem occurred.

In every network (well, larger than a single subnet behind a firewall, that
is) I've seen, where there were RFC1918 addresses routed on the inside,
these things happened, although in v4-land. 

It is madness. It must stop. With v6, we can make it stop. So, SL must go
away, for it is an invitation to madness. 

All things SL is claimed to solve are solveable with unique addresses too,
as long as you've got enough of them. The rest is just simple (perhaps
tedious) work that every operations-aware person I know of would prefer to
madness. 

-- 
Måns Nilsson    http://vvv.besserwisser.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email