Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote:
[Tony Hain writes:]
What many are missing here is that this is not about 1918 style
addressing. This is about the fact that addresses do not have the same
visibility and accessibility throughout the network.
no, it's not just about that. you are the only one who keeps insisting
that. you seem to be trying to conflate two different notions of scope.
For what it's worth, I've been watching this discussion for a while,
not as a proponent of any particular side, and I completely agree with
Keith on this point. I've seen Tony Hain repeatedly make the assertion
that this discussion is about the fact that not all addresses can be
reached from everywhere, or that we don't have a "flat routing space",
or any number of related restatements... but I have seen nothing other
than Tony's assertions that would make me think this dicussion is
about any of those things. It puzzles me that he keeps repeating them.
Tony, *why* do you think this discussion is about reachability?
Everyone else: Do any of you believe that's what this is about, aside
from Tony's assertions and peoples responses to those assertions?
From what I have seen, those who think "local scope" is harmful, are
concerned about the ambuity of addresses, as Keith says here again.
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. 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.
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- cos(_at_)polyamory(_dot_)org
http://cos.polyamory.org/
-- WBRS (100.1 FM) -- info(_at_)wbrs(_dot_)org http://www.wbrs.org/
Romkey's Law: all unanimous decisions are wrong. Proof: "They can't ALL
be right. So if they're all saying the same thing, it must be wrong."