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
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.