Private port numbers?

Thu Aug 14 21:01:33 UTC 2003

Subject: Re: Private port numbers? Date: Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 11:41:25AM -0700 Quoting Crist Clark (crist.clark at globalstar.com):
> 
> Lars Higham wrote:
> > 
> > It's a good idea, granted, but isn't this covered by IPv6 administrative
> > scoping?
> 
> That's the network layer, not the transport layer. IPv6 scoping has the 
> potential to be very helpful for private addressing since it's fundamentally
> built into the protocol, as opposed to RFC1918 addresses which are just 
> kinda an afterthought. This means that, by default, vendor products should
> DTRT with respect to scoped addresses, and administrators have more 
> effective tools.

Unless I am out hiking completely, you are talking about site-locals. 
Please don't: They are no more -- the ipv6 session at the SF IETF
reached in-room consensus about removing them, a decision that was
later confirmed on the mailing list.  There are people who did not
like this, and they rather loudly try to get the decision reversed,
but they are the minority.

Site-locals are, thank $DEITY, a thing of the past. 

(OTOH, Link-locals still remain in the protocol.) 
-- 
Måns Nilsson         Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204         KTHNOC
                        MN1334-RIPE

I feel ... JUGULAR ...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20030814/36548fd0/attachment.sig>