IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net> Fri, 28 March 2003 18:47 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 NAA11732; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:47:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by ran.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 18yz5g-00013P-00 for ietf-list@ran.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:00:36 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([10.27.2.28] helo=ietf.org) by ran.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18yz5P-00011d-00 for ietf@ran.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:00:19 -0500
Received: from tndh.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11602 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:44:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from eagleswings (127.0.0.1) by library with [XMail 1.10 (Win32/Ix86) ESMTP Server] id <S234C0> for <ietf@ietf.org> from <alh-ietf@tndh.net>; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:47:02 -0800
Reply-To: alh-ietf@tndh.net
From: Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
To: 'Tim Chown' <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:47:02 -0800
Message-ID: <062201c2f55a$6c359d70$ee1a4104@eagleswings>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
In-Reply-To: <20030328084706.GC6825@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id NAA11732

Tim Chown wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 05:48:44PM -0800, Christian Huitema wrote:
> > 
> > My Windows-XP laptop currently has 14 IPv6 addresses, and 2 IPv4 
> > addresses. The sky is not falling.
> 
> Except of those 14 some seven(?) are RFC3041 addresses, which 
> break a number of applications... so there are some clouds in the sky.

Excuse me, but it is not the addresses that are the problem here. There
are applications out there that have an unreasonable expectation that a
ptr record in DNS provides some degree of security. We know that not all
IPv4 nodes have ptr records, so it is arguable that these applications
are inherently broken. The lack of IPv6 ptr records for some addresses
doesn't change that. 

Tony

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email