Hi, Rob,
I agree with your take from the network side, I'm thinking Terry
may be looking at it from the applications side (what's the
difference between one perfectly lovely address that fails
unpredictably and another perfectly lovely address that also
fails unpredictably? and the unknowable firewall topology is
probably within a first approximation of the unknowable site
topology).
But Terry can tell me I'm not thinking straight, if needed...
Spencer
--- Rob Austein <sra+ietf(_at_)hactrn(_dot_)net> wrote:
At Sun, 20 Apr 2003 08:47:43 -0700 (Pacific Standard Time),
Terry Gray wrote:
Also, I'm wondering how the SL/1918 address-scoping debate
plays in
the context of firewalls. Don't firewalls provide an even
more
random form of address scoping that apps must cope with? Or
not?
To a first approximation, firewalls are an attempt to impose
tighter
scoping on applications that (in the opinion of the entity
operating
the firewall) cannot be trusted to make their own scope
decisions.
Very different trust relationship from a situation in which
the
applications themselves chose between multiple address scopes.