Subject: RE: Limiting the Use of Site-Local

From: "Hesham Soliman (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 22:57:03 +0100

> or to put it another way, why do you have so much faith in 
  > filters of SL addresses and so little faith in filters of prefixes?
  > 

=> Because they're not configured, they're hardcoded.

Hesham
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 17:06:13 -0500

> => Because they're not configured, they're hardcoded.

on the contrary, SLs *are* configured.  

the same host platforms will use either SLs or globals or both - 
whether they use SL isn't hardcoded, it's a matter of configuration.

the same hardware that routes SLs within a site will be used 
to block routing of SLs outside of a site - it's just a matter of
configuration as to whether they're on a site border or not.
in one case you tell the router to filter SLs, in another case
you tell it to filter all addresses with certain prefixes.

any device vendor that hardcodes a dependence on SL is drastically
reducing its potential market.

Keith

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 03:30:44 +0100

> you tell it to filter all addresses with certain prefixes.

To prove Keiths point, just look at how often any of the RFC1918 
addresses occur in the global routing table. This is despite the fact 
that they are not supposed to be routed.

Best regards,

- kurtis -