Re: [v6ops] Thoughts on draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-01

On 4/30/14, 7:55 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com
> <mailto:fred@cisco.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Ask me someday what thoughts go through my mind about applications
>     making inferences from network layer addresses.
> 
> 
> The wording in RFC 3927 is much stronger. For example, it states
> multiple times that packets sourced from 169.254/16 MUST NOT be
> forwarded, and that they MUST NOT ever be sent to any router for
> forwarding. I think it's perfectly reasonable for an app (or even an
> OS!) to assume that such addresses have no connectivity.
>  
> 
>     Hey, 192.168.0.0/16 <http://192.168.0.0/16>is for networks that
>     don’t connect to the Internet. You want proof? From RFC 1918, the
>     motivation is
> 
>        With the proliferation of TCP/IP technology worldwide, including
>        outside the Internet itself, an increasing number of non-connected
>        enterprises use this technology and its addressing capabilities for
>        sole intra-enterprise communications, without any intention to ever
>        directly connect to other enterprises or the Internet itself.
> 
> 
> Funny, that's what the proponents of ULA-only networks say too - "no,
> this network will NEVER connect to the Internet, ever!!11" I suspect
> they do so because they know that saying "we want to use NAT to connect
> this network to the Internet like we do in IPv4" is going to result in
> strong opinions and removal of support for the use case. But that's
> off-topic here.

site-local unicast in ipv6  and rfc 1918 are relatively contemporaneous
ideas...

I don't thing the pressures that produce such solutions are particularly
new in fact it's pretty easy to assert that they co-evolved.

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 

Re: [v6ops] Thoughts on draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-01

Attachment: signature.asc