Subject: RE: Limiting the Use of Site-Local

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:45:36 -0800

> Alain Durand wrote:
> Oh... the old argument that NAT/private address
> brings security...

Go tell that to people that write requirements, especially the ones that
work for the government, and when you have convinced them get back to
us, ok?

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:58:47 -0800

> work for the government, and when you have convinced them get back to

I thought we were trying to solve _technical_ problems.
As I was wrong, I'll shut up.

	- Alain.

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 18:10:19 -0500

I'm working on it... :-)

Seriously, we have an opportunity, with the introduction of
IPv6, to advocate new ways of doing things on the new
network.

Just because people have been doing something one (bad) way
in the past, doesn't mean that we should advocate that
approach in IPv6.

Margaret

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 19:33:50 -0500

so you're arguing that we should abandon good judgement because some
government bureaucrats who write requirements don't understand security?

tell them to use IPv4.  it's already too screwed up to fix.

Keith