IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: A follow up question

"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> Wed, 23 April 2003 22:59 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 SAA13165; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 18:59:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from majordomo by ran.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 198TSz-0007iV-00 for ietf-list@ran.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:15:53 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([10.27.2.28] helo=ietf.org) by ran.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 198TOj-0007JI-00 for ietf@ran.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:11:29 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12486 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 18:49:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 198T5b-0000ao-00 for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 18:51:43 -0400
Received: from adsl-65-67-187-82.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net ([65.67.187.82] helo=defiant.dfw.nostrum.com ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 198T5b-0000ag-00 for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 18:51:43 -0400
Received: from ssprunk (IDENT:sprunk@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by defiant.dfw.nostrum.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id h3NMppL09787; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:51:51 -0500
Message-ID: <001d01c309ea$eeb87890$93b58742@ssprunk>
From: Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>
To: alh-ietf@tndh.net, 'Daniel Senie' <dts@senie.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com
References: <036f01c309ce$19def160$261e4104@eagleswings>
Subject: Re: A follow up question
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:44:31 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thus spake "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
> If Bl & Bg had indicators of scope differentiation in the prefix, A could
> recognize the difference if it bothered to look. It wouldn't have to, but
> if it didn't it would either have to refer the name, or provide C with the
> entire list so it could figure out which one works. Brian's C000 thread
> was exploring this space.

"Global" addresses can be scoped by administrative/security devices just as
easily as non-globals, so a scope indicator in the address is merely a hint
which may lead the app/stack astray.  The only way to determine if a given
address, global or otherwise, will work is to try using it.

SL does not solve -- nor did it create -- this problem any more than RFC1597
did.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email