Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))

["Matt Crawford" <crawdad at fnal.gov>]

> All things SL is claimed to solve are solveable with unique
> addresses too, as long as you've got enough of them. The rest is
> just simple (perhaps tedious) work that every operations-aware
> person I know of would prefer to madness.

All right, how do you make internal site communications completely
oblivious to a change in your externally-visible routing prefix?

(Not everyone accepts that this is something necessary to achieve,
but some insist that it is.)