Re: what the "scope" disagreement is about

On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 15:09:22 EDT, Ofer Inbar said:

> From what I have seen, those who think "local scope" is harmful, are
> concerned about the ambuity of addresses, as Keith says here again.
Exactly.

> 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.
Yes, I'm concerned about reachability, and it *does* have something to
do with locally scoped addresses, but in an inverse fashion..

>                    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.
The "inverse fashion" mentioned above - it's a LOT harder to diagnose a
problem when the remote end is handing you bogon debugging information.
Anybody else ever had to deal with the case where a 'traceroute' to a
dead host shows one path, but sending a TCP SYN packet gets back an
ICMP Host Unreachable from one RFC1918 space address complaining about
another 1918-space address, neither of which are in the traceroute? ;)

pgpy6SGD7dx18.pgp
Description: PGP signature