Naiming Shen wrote:
] > ok, but if any special routing support for SL is removed, then the only
] > thing left is a private address space for SL. as in ipv4 case, i'm not
] > aware of any application treating 10.x.x.x addr any different from the
] > global routable ones.
]
] many such apps do treat 1918 addresses differently than ordinary
] addresses, in an attempt to work around problems caused by NATs.
]
then the purpose is to work around the NAT, not necessary related
to the private addresses. if for any reason, people still want to
use NAT for v6, then those applications still need to adjust. there
is no other way around it. i can understand why people hate NAT
for various reasons, but private address is not equal to NAT.
The problems related to NAT and those related to private addresses are
in most cases the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
