[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Real life scenario - requirements (local addressing)



Pekka Savola wrote:
> 
> Just responding to a few points..
> 
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Andrew White wrote:
> > When that 6to4 address goes away, I don't want my persistent sessions
> > to be forced to maintain a stale address.
> 
> Why not?  There's no problem with that, really.  You can continue using
> bogus addresses as long as you want, the problems only start appearing
> when you reconnect.

Real example: My ISP's DSL connection decides to drop the connection and
reconnect (with a new IPv4 address, and thus 6to4 prefix) every 1-3 hours. 
I'd rather not subject my internal network to that if I don't have to.


> I've made a counter point several times, and some probably agree, but
> really think ANY solution which "promises" automatic filtering is a
> non-starter.
> 
> It seems totally bogus to create an assumption that someone upstream will
> just do it and rely on that.  YOU CAN'T RELY ON THAT.

Agreed.  Which is why my border router ALSO implements the same REQUIRED
filter, no?  *shrug*

But this particular issue isn't about whether local addresses are filtered. 
It's whether an application can assume that global addresses are never
filtered, and the answer is that it can't.  Ergo, global addresses are also
scoped addresses.

-- 
Andrew White
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------