IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> Thu, 27 March 2003 23:55 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 SAA26875; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:55:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by ran.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 18yhMM-0000D7-00 for ietf-list@ran.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:04:38 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([10.27.2.28] helo=ietf.org) by ran.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18yhLz-00008X-00 for ietf@ran.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:04:15 -0500
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26536 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:48:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h2RNp1A19361; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:51:02 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:51:01 -0500
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: "Charles E. Perkins" <charliep@IPRG.nokia.com>
Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, crawdad@fnal.gov, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)
Message-Id: <20030327185101.5dc02d39.moore@cs.utk.edu>
In-Reply-To: <3E838BCF.E4588B1A@iprg.nokia.com>
References: <DAC3FCB50E31C54987CD10797DA511BA026A00C2@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <200303271508.h2RF842Y017814@gungnir.fnal.gov> <20030327182201.6016865c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E838BCF.E4588B1A@iprg.nokia.com>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> I suspect that most people there, who voted for
> the elimination of site-locals, would still be
> favor of enabling the features that site-locals
> were intended to offer.  Perhaps the majority
> position could be paraphrased as "against site-local,
> but sorry to see them go".

I agree.  I think there was a general understanding that we need to
provide the capabilities that SLs were supposed to provide, but to do so
in other ways.

Keith

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email