On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Tony Hain wrote: > The only relationship SL has to renumbering is the ability to have > connections persist while a network is intermittently attached to the > public network. Renumbering is already solved in terms of the simplicity > of moving hosts from one address space to another. The complex issues to > work on are the places like firewall & router configurations that have > explicit addresses in them. What is not fixable is the fact that apps > will break if you change an address out from under them. This is a fact > the app developers complaining about the complexity of scoped addresses > continually overlook. The assertion is that all a network needs to do is > change the addresses in use when connecting. Never mind that every local > use app will break on every one of those events. That is not an > acceptable approach. Who said the addresses are *completely* revokated when the network connectivity is intermittent? More likely than not, those address advertisements have a lifetime longer than the duration of the downtime (both preferred and valid in RFC2461 terms!) -- and whoops, everything works like a charm still! > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ietf@ietf.org [mailto:owner-ietf@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Eliot Lear > > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 12:59 PM > > To: alh-ietf@tndh.net > > Cc: 'The IETF' > > Subject: Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT... > > > > > > Tony Hain wrote: > > > Trying to use SL for routing between sites is what is broken. > > > > But that's not all... > > > > > The space > > > identified in RFC 1918 was set aside because people were taking > > > whatever addresses they could find in documentation. > > > > Not as I recall. Jon Postel received several requests for > > extraordinarily large chunks of address space, particularly > > from Europe. > > I believe Daniel Karrenberg might have more information. > > This forced > > his hand. In addition, people such as Paul Vixie were trying > > to do the > > best they could to make random address space sork, which is > > admittedly a > > trick in a small name space. Recall at the time that CIDR was a new > > thing. You couldn't simply use a portion of network 10, for > > instance. > > The same cannot be said for IPv6. > > > > > SL was set aside because > > > there are people that either want unrouted space, or don't want to > > > continuously pay a registry to use a disconnected network. > > > > Any address space can be unrouted address space. Fix the underlying > > problem, Tony. Making renumbering easy. If we don't do > > that, IPv6 is > > no better than Ipv4 (with the possible exception of MIPv6). > > > > > It is far > > > cheaper to train an app developer (though there may be an > > exception or > > > two) to deal with it than it is to fix all the ad-hoc > > solutions that > > > people will come up with to replace SL. > > > > Fix the renumbering problem and this isn't an issue. > > > > Eliot > > > > > > > > -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
