We don't, and that is my point. The draft in question improves on that situation by creating a prefix that the rest of the network can easily deal with. Internal apps may still break, although I would argue that the local addressing prefix opens some options to make that a little less likely...

--On Monday, November 03, 2003 23:19 +0200 Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Hans Kruse wrote:
Please explain to me how the job of applications gets any easier if the
local addressing is done with a hijacked prefix....

Why exactly should we care if party X's internal applications break because it hijacks a prefix?

--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings




Hans Kruse, Associate Professor J. Warren McClure School of Communication Systems Management Adjunct Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Ohio University, Athens, OH, 45701 740-593-4891 voice, 740-593-4889 fax

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to