Subject: Re: site-local != NAT

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 15:48:28 -0500

[ Note to all:  can we please take all of these IPv6 threads off the main
IETF list?  Anyone interested can join the IPNG list ]

Thus spake <[email-masked]>
> Right - and the entire problem with "site local" addresses is that they
> are almost by definition ambiguous if they ever escape.  The host
> sending the opaque blob has no a priori way of knowing if the blob
> will be in the *right* scope when you get there.

So if what we call a "site local" address is always unique, even between
sites, that would pacify you?

There is no inherent requirement that SL addresses be ambiguous, and there
are several drafts out there on how to ensure they're not.  "Site local"
just means the address is only _reachable_ from its local site.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 16:54:57 -0400

> There is no inherent requirement that SL addresses be ambiguous, and
> there are several drafts out there on how to ensure they're not. 

for that matter, there's no inherent requirement that there be any 
set of addresses that is defined in the architecture to be filtered at
some arbitrary boundary.  in other words, there's no inherent
requirement for SLs at all.  

Keith