IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Mon, 31 March 2003 22:12 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 RAA27829; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:12:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by ran.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 1907gs-0004aq-00 for ietf-list@ran.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:23:42 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([10.27.2.28] helo=ietf.org) by ran.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 1907g1-0004ER-00 for ietf@ran.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:22:49 -0500
Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27467 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:06:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h2VM8mWc008614; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:08:48 -0500
Message-Id: <200303312208.h2VM8mWc008614@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 03/30/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev
To: Matt Crawford <crawdad@fnal.gov>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:49:03 CST." <200303312149.h2VLn32Y002020@gungnir.fnal.gov>
References: <200303312149.h2VLn32Y002020@gungnir.fnal.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_141658432P"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:08:48 -0500
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:49:03 CST, Matt Crawford <crawdad@fnal.gov>  said:
> > 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?
> 
> I thought we agreed, completely outside of IPv6 concerns, that
> shipping addresses in application data was bad. So NodeA refers
> NodeB to foobar-server.sitea.org. Q.E.F.

Yeah, we can agree all we want, but RFC959 still has a PORT command in it.

And until we've managed to move *all* the dain-bramaged applications to
Historical status, we're stuck with it.

And sometimes you have no *CHOICE* - if you're not shipping addresses around,
what *do* you put on a DNS A record?  This isn't facetiousness - it's a
real concern.  You can pass a hostname around instead of an address, and
when you look it up, you get back either a unique address (which you can
run with) or a site-local address (which you can't).  That's why RFC1918
has the prohibition against leaking private addresses into the DNS.

And let's face it guys - site-local is nothing but 1918 space on anabolic
steroids.  You thought it was hard to handle now, wait till it comes back
with a full blown case of "roid rage"....

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email