Re: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)

To: Michel Py <michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
Subject: Re: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)
From: Eliot Lear <lear at cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:45:38 -0800
Cc: Ted Hardie <hardie at qualcomm.com>, The IETF <ietf at ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F504560A@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
References: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F504560A@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312

Michel,

What you say is possible, and has happened. But dumb things happen. Those dumb things could happen with non site-local addresses as well. But look. Ultimately I think we as a community do need to own up to better tooling, which can lead to better expectations. Also, I don't see any reason why an IP v6 prefix allocation can't linger for a very long time after a contract ends. The tools need to set expectations, and perhaps some of the DHCP prefix delegation code can help here.

Regards,

Eliot

References:
- RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)
  - From: Michel Py

Prev by Date: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)
Next by Date: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)
Previous by thread: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)
Next by thread: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.