On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 15:09:22 EDT, Ofer Inbar said: > From what I have seen, those who think "local scope" is harmful, are > concerned about the ambuity of addresses, as Keith says here again. Exactly. > They are NOT concerned about the fact that a given address may not be > reachable from some places, or may be reachable via different routes > from different places. Or, rather, whether they're concerned about > that or not, it has nothing to do with their objections to locally > scoped addresses. Yes, I'm concerned about reachability, and it *does* have something to do with locally scoped addresses, but in an inverse fashion.. > All of their objections to locally scoped addresses > seem to be about the fact that the addresses are ambiguous, not unique. > They have no objections to globally unique addresses that remain > "local" as far as routing and reachability. The "inverse fashion" mentioned above - it's a LOT harder to diagnose a problem when the remote end is handing you bogon debugging information. Anybody else ever had to deal with the case where a 'traceroute' to a dead host shows one path, but sending a TCP SYN packet gets back an ICMP Host Unreachable from one RFC1918 space address complaining about another 1918-space address, neither of which are in the traceroute? ;)
Attachment:
pgp00225.pgp
Description: PGP signature