Subject: Re: Why I support deprecating SLs

From: Dan Lanciani <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 16:13:33 -0500 (EST)

Leif Johansson <[email-masked]> wrote:

|Dan Lanciani wrote:
|
|>What makes you think that the apps people who say it *will not work* are
|>correct?  Especially when they are talking about models that are already in
|>use?
|>
|>  
|>
|Which models would that be exacly?

Please re-read the message to which you initially responded.

|I hope you are not talking about the lets
|run-everything-over-http-model...

I see no mention of such a thing anywhere in this thread.

|The bottom line is that lots of 
|applications
|are impossible to deploy on the Internet today because of rfc1918.

Hardly.  There are a few (not lots of) applications that are more difficult
(not impossible) to deploy on the Internet today because of a restrictive
address assignment policy (not because of rfc1918).  Think about it.  If
there were no private address space and the nodes that currently use rfc1918
addresses had *no* addresses at all would they be able to run your hypothetical
applications any better?  Private address space and NAT are the effects--not
the causes--of a restrictive address allocation policy.  Would you deprive
people of the address space they need to run the applications they need to
run just to make it easier to write some other super-apps that those users
don't care about?

				Dan Lanciani
				ddl@danlan.*com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 22:39:22 +0200

>run just to make it easier to write some other super-apps that those users

No I want people to have global addresses!