ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)

2003-03-27 00:57:01


--On onsdag, mars 26, 2003 17:40:23 -0800 David Conrad <david(_dot_)conrad(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com> wrote:

Ted,

On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 05:03  PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
        If you were using some of an allocated portion as routable addresses
and some as unrouted addresses, you might be forced to change the
unrouted addresses as a consequences of choosing someone new to carry
the traffic from the routed portions of your network.  That would carry
the same pain of renumbering it always does.

Which, of course, implies NAT ("where's there's pain, there's NAT"? :-)).


the more general aphorism is probably

 where there's pain
 people want painkillers
 painkillers don't cure the cause of pain
 painkillers have side effects

not that this helps evaluate the issue (much); my personal take (which is largely irrelevant to this list) is that IPv6 applications will be cheaper and simpler when the code does not have to treat some addresses differently from others; the fewer special cases, the better.

Special cases are pain; in this case, we were able to eliminate one source of this pain.

In my opinion, of course.

                  Harald




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>