Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Private port numbers?
From: Mans Nilsson <mansaxel () sunet se>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 23:01:33 +0200

Subject: Re: Private port numbers? Date: Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 11:41:25AM -0700 Quoting Crist Clark (crist.clark () 
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 ...

Attachment: _bin
Description:


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]