> Why do you keep insisting that lack of public accessability implies
> anything about trust?
you are the one making such assertions.
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun
> > > I was suggesting that SL is an indication that a filtering
> > policy has
> > > been applied to this network.
> >
> > seems like a *huge* stretch - several of the ideas for using
> > SL have nothing to do with filtering. also, SL strikes me as
> > an extremely poor mechanism for communicati
Kieth Moore wrote:
> to me it seems completely unreasonable for any device to make
> any assuumptions about the trust level placed in "site-local"
> addresses. this should be a MUST NOT.
Why do you keep insisting that lack of public accessability implies
anything about trust?
Tony
-
Keith Moore wrote:
> > I was suggesting that SL is an indication that a filtering
> policy has
> > been applied to this network.
>
> seems like a *huge* stretch - several of the ideas for using
> SL have nothing to do with filtering. also, SL strikes me as
> an extremely poor mechanism for co
> I was suggesting that SL is an indication that a filtering policy has
> been applied to this network.
seems like a *huge* stretch - several of the ideas for using SL have nothing
to do with filtering. also, SL strikes me as an extremely poor mechanism
for communicating filtering policy.
in g
to me it seems completely unreasonable for any device to make
any assuumptions about the trust level placed in "site-local"
addresses. this should be a MUST NOT.
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:
--On 17. november 2002 16:08 -0500 Tony Hain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is nothing requiring that you run the network with SL. Just that
if you choose to do so, there will be some devices and applications that
will require less work. Personally if I were building an
auto-configuring devic
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> do you mean that it's appropriate policy for equipment/application
> manufacturers to ship products that will only work out of the box if
> site-locals are configured on the network?
>
> I'd like to preserve the ability to run a network without configuring
> sit
Keith Moore wrote:
> ...
> One of the assertions that Tony seems to be making is that
> SLs can be used to communicate to applications when policy
> forbids them from talking
> to one another.(Tony, if I'm mistating this, please restate it)
I was suggesting that SL is an indication that a fi
do you mean that it's appropriate policy for equipment/application
manufacturers to ship products that will only work out of the box if
site-locals are configured on the network?
I'd like to preserve the ability to run a network without configuring
site-locals without too much impact...
> I think the answer is yes, it is reasonable to use site-locals as an
> indication of policy. The kind of examples I have in mind are
>
> 1) A default configuration for some applications (eg database, file, and
> print servers) might be to only accept connections from site-local
> addresses. Thes
I think the answer is yes, it is reasonable to use site-locals as an
indication of policy. The kind of examples I have in mind are
1) A default configuration for some applications (eg database, file, and
print servers) might be to only accept connections from site-local
addresses. These applicatio
12 matches
Mail list logo
