Re: site-local != NAT

ietf

Re: site-local != NAT

2003-05-01 14:46:40

There is no inherent requirement that SL addresses be ambiguous, and
there are several drafts out there on how to ensure they're not.


for that matter, there's no inherent requirement that there be any 
set of addresses that is defined in the architecture to be filtered at
some arbitrary boundary.  in other words, there's no inherent
requirement for SLs at all.  

Keith

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: site-local != NAT, Keith Moore RE: site-local != NAT, Tony Hain Re: site-local != NAT, Keith Moore Re: site-local != NAT, Charlie Perkins Re: site-local != NAT, Valdis . Kletnieks Re: site-local != NAT, Stephen Sprunk Re: site-local != NAT, Keith Moore <=

Previous by Date:	Re[2]: My thoughts on local-use addresses, Richard Welty
Next by Date:	Re: site-local != NAT, Stephen Sprunk
Previous by Thread:	Re: site-local != NAT, Stephen Sprunk
Next by Thread:	Re: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Keith Moore
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]