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

["Matt Crawford" <[e-mail]>]

> Yes, there was mention of "site local as a license to NAT", but
> there where many other arguments: leakage through IP, DNS or
> application; the lack of practicality of several restrictive models
> for site locals; the possibility or not to use other solutions for
> isolated sites; and the complexity of handling scoped addresses in
> applications. At the end, the tally shows 20 hands rising in
> support of site locals, 102 hands rising for their elimination.
> 
> In short, it was not a hasty discussion, there was an informed
> debate, opinions evolved during the discussion, and a consensus was
> reached.

This is so typical of the modern IETF -- 102 people were persuaded
by handwaving arguments that "something bad might happen" if a new
and useful technique were deployed, and they are being allowed to
overwhelm the 20 who were willing to dig in and find and solve any
real problems.

How many of your 22 speakers had implementation and deployment
experience to report?