IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Andrew Newton <anewton@ecotroph.net> Thu, 27 March 2003 02:33 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 VAA28832; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:33:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by ran.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 18yNOn-0007Lk-00 for ietf-list@ran.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:45:49 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([10.27.2.28] helo=ietf.org) by ran.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18yNGo-00073u-00 for ietf@ran.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:37:34 -0500
Received: from zak.ecotroph.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA28491 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:22:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ecotroph.net (64-83-8-178-nova-dsl.cavtel.net [::ffff:64.83.8.178]) (AUTH: LOGIN anewton, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,RC4-MD5) by zak.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:24:40 -0500
Message-ID: <3E8260E7.4050207@ecotroph.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:24:39 -0500
From: Andrew Newton <anewton@ecotroph.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030212
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Conrad <david.conrad@nominum.com>, Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, The IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)
References: <8F54D757-5FEB-11D7-BCE2-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <8F54D757-5FEB-11D7-BCE2-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Or what if there is no provider (as in default addresses used by a 
software vendor)?

-andy

David Conrad wrote:
> Ted,
> 
> 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