On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 01:10 AM, 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.
no, the purpose is to work around both NAT and scoped addresses. NAT imposes limitations that scoped addresses do not (because the address is changed in transit and because NATs typically impose limitations on the direction in which a communication can be established). but scoped addresses impose limitations whether or not NAT is used.
if for any reason, people still want to use NAT for v6, then those applications still need to adjust.
no, IPv6 needs to adjust to not use scoped addresses.
i can understand why people hate NAT for various reasons, but private address is not equal to NAT.
not equal, but similar.
Keith
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
