From: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
I am working on an application that works accross addressing realm
That nasty stuff causes all kinds of real world trouble
just a couple of messages ago you were claiming that the discussion was about
moot theories and now you're claiming that it causes real world trouble.
which is it?
It's not a moot theory that NAT/site local addressing causes real world
problems. The academic (in the bad sense of the word), ISO style moot
theorizing is the repeated haranguing about the evils of NAT and site
local addresses and the implication that the IETF could issue an edict
and prevent their use in (or near) an IPv6 Internet.
So why are you only repeating what you've said many times before instead
of writing an RFC that will repudiate and replace BCP 5?
the reason I repeat these things once in awhile is because a significant
fraction of people still don't get it, and they're hindering progress.
Here progress is measured only by published RFCs. Repetitions of your
inflammatory litanies of the evils of NAT and site local addresses
prevent progress. Every replay resets things to the start of the
"we gotta have them; no we don't; you're ignorant and wrong; no you
are; you're so clueless that you use Windows; no you are and your
mother too" groove. I doubt there is anything that can be done about
NAT and site locals, but one thing is clear. Your repetitions prevent
progress as much as the manipulations of the IETF's bureaucratic
machinery by your moot debate opponents....no, "debate" is wrong.
When I was an academic debator, the judges allowed only a fixed number
of fairly short opportunities to speak.
You claim that you do the IETF a service by replaying your old position
statements because people are ignorant, stupid, illiterate, and didn't
understand before. Do you really think that makes sense?
the reason I don't try to repudiate BCP 5 is that it's clear that for IPv4
we're out of addresses, and you can't really solve the problem in IPv4
any other way except to move to another address space.
Let's assume that's true. Where is your I-D for a BCP against site
local addresses for IPv6?
I dislike NAT and site local addresses in theory and practice. I'm
not volunteering to work on an anti-site-local BCP because I have no
hope that it could affect the real world, and because I don't have a
good enough alternative for site local addresses. That application
of mine and every other real world application will have to deal with
NAT and site local addresses forever. Life Sucks, but I've not found
an alternative I prefer.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com