Subject: RE: Limiting the Use of Site-Local

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 07:44:45 -0800

> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> Yes, this makes more sense...

That's what it's always been, the "more" is irrelevant here

> I think that this would be a perfectly legal network
> configuration under the current scoped addressing
> architecture rules, and it would result in outside hosts
> being unable to reach the control devices.

Then what was all this noise about restricting SLs to non-connected
networks? This *is* a connected network.

Michel.

-------------------- Global Addresses ----------------><-- SL addr -->
+-----+
| ISP |    :
+--+--+    :
   !       :
+--+---------+  +----------+     +----------+     +----------+
| Router A : +--+ Firewall +--+--+ Firewall +--+--+ Router B +---+
+------------+  +----------+  |  +----------+  |  +----------+   |
           :                  |                |                 |
           :              +---+--+          +--+---+        +----+----+
           :              | DFZ  |          | Host |        | Control |
           :              | Host |          +------+        | Device  |
           :              +------+                          +---------+
---Site -->:<-------------------------- Site ------------------------->
           :

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 10:58:21 -0500

>networks? This *is* a connected network.

Because, I have been suggesting that we _change_ the scoped
addressing architecture rules to restrict the use of site-locals
to non-connected networks.

Margaret