IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se> Mon, 31 March 2003 08:09 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 DAA28852; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 03:09:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by ran.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 18zuT5-0003y6-00 for ietf-list@ran.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 03:16:35 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([10.27.2.28] helo=ietf.org) by ran.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18zuSs-0003xX-00 for ietf@ran.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 03:16:22 -0500
Received: from dhcp1.se.kurtis.pp.se (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA28725 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 03:00:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from kurtis.pp.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dhcp1.se.kurtis.pp.se (8.12.7/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2V83cWv002771; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:03:40 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 16:06:19 +0200
Subject: Re: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551)
Cc: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, Michel Py <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>, The IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
To: David Conrad <david.conrad@nominum.com>
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <8F54D757-5FEB-11D7-BCE2-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>
Message-Id: <C7C301AB-62B8-11D7-8DEC-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>

	David,

let's not mix the problem with provider independent addressspace with 
the SL issue. The first needs to be solved anyway, and SLs are not the 
answer.

Best regards,

- kurtis -

> What happens when you change providers?
>
> Rgds,
> -drc
>
> On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 04:01  PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>> Michel,
>> 	I don't think something needs to be provider independent
>> to fit this bill.  Getting a slice of the global address space from
>> some provider and choosing not route a portion of it (even
>> if that portion is 100%) seems to me to create "non-routed
>> globally unique space".  Are you concerned that doing so
>> has some impact on the routing system that needs to be
>> considered?
>> 	Money and other annoyances are certainly concerns we
>> all face.  In that spirit please understand that keeping site local 
>> costs
>> different money and creates different annoyances.
>> 				regards,
>> 						Ted
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email