Alain Durand wrote: > > On Nov 3, 2003, at 5:12 PM, Christian Huitema wrote: > > In the case in point, there is a significant constituency who believes > > that they need a replacement for site local addresses, and that > > "draft-hinden" is a reasonable way to obtain this replacement. You are > > indeed free to not use such addresses and never deploy them within the > > networks that you manage, but that does not change the needs of others. > > In principle, I would almost agree with this statement, with one caveat: > "... as long as it does not break anything in the global Internet for > people that do not use this proposal" > > As I explain in a previous message, this last property is not verified > by the hinden/haberman draft, as when those addresses leak, > they would create untraceable problems, very similar to the one > caused by RFC1918 leaks today.
Q: Who is to blame and likely to be a victim? A: any ISP without ingress filtering. To misquote Pekka, why exactly should we care if ISP X's operations break because it fails to implement ingress filtering? Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
