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

[Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>]

> > > I believe that you have misunderstood my point...  I'll try 
> > > to explain further, although our friends in the applications 
> > > area may be able to give better examples.
> > > 
> > > Let's assume that there is a FooBar server in SiteA.  If 
> > > another node in SiteA (NodeA) is communicating via a 
> > > multi-party application to a node in SiteB (NodeB), and wants 
> > > to refer NodeB to the FooBar server in SiteA, what does it do?
> > 
> > Send a name.
> 
> Not all addresses are published in DNS.
> DNS isn't a requirement for IP either.

nor is DNS reliable enough or fast enough or unambiguous enough.

> > > If this is IPv6 with site-local addressing, NodeA may be 
> > > speaking to the FooBar server using a site-local address.  
> > > What happens if NodeA sends that site local address to NodeB?
> > 
> > Any app that sends topology locator information without
> > understanding the topology is broken.
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> Thus RFC959 is broken? There goes my favourite transfer proto :)

fortunately, Tony doesn't get to decide what is broken.   by now it's
pretty obvious to almost everyone that SL is unworkable, and that
deprecating them is the Right Thing.  so apps won't have to deal
with SLs.  this is the best thing that could happen to IPv6.

Keith