> > Tony, this discussion is about ambiguous addresses. Your persistent > > attempt to conflate it with packet filtering and/or routing policy > > isn't shedding any light on the argument. And you're smart enough > > to know the difference. > > And you're conflating ambiguous addressing with scoping. nope. the property that I'm concerned about is not that an address may only be usable within a particular portion of the network, it's that the address is ambiguous. so given an address there's no way to know whether or not it is valid, or why it doesn't seem to work to let you connect with the host/peer/server you think it's associated with. > > defining a prefix didn't change the architecture - asserting that > > the same prefix could be reused in multiple locations did change the > > architecture. > > Perhaps. There is no functional difference unless multiple instances > of the same address are actually _reachable_ by a third party; the > mere existence of duplicates does not change the architecture. wrong. it's useful to have unique names for hosts (or points on the network) even if they're not directly reachable by everyone who might possess those names. Keith