nanog mailing list archives
Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
From: Nils Ketelsen <nils.ketelsen () kuehne-nagel com>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:36:27 -0500
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 05:18:49PM -0600, Adi Linden wrote:
There are a number of good and reasonable uses for RFC1918 addresses. Just assume a individual/business/corporate LAN with client/server applications and statically configured ip numbering. RFC1918 addresses are perfect. NAT allows this network to be connected through any provider(s) to the Internet. There is no risk of collision of the internal address with publically routed addresses. To do without RFC1918 type address space it expect to a. Obtain unique, permanent address space for personal/business/corporate use b. Receive this unique, permanent address space at no cost c. Have this unique address space routed via any provider of my choosing
I see this a lot recently: You are mixing up RfC1918 and NAT. If I have globally unique addresses I can NAT them as well as 10/8. One has nothing to do with the other. Having to NAT RfC1918 addresses to reach the internet, does not imply that I have to have RfC1918 to be able to do NAT. Nils
Current thread:
- Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Leo Bicknell (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Joe Abley (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Leo Bicknell (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Joe Abley (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Leo Bicknell (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Pekka Savola (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Adi Linden (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Joe Abley (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Måns Nilsson (Nov 10)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Jeff Rosowski (Nov 11)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Nils Ketelsen (Nov 11)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Adi Linden (Nov 11)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Jeroen Massar (Nov 11)
- IPV6 renumbering painless? Michael . Dillon (Nov 11)
- RE: IPV6 renumbering painless? Tony Hain (Nov 11)
- Re: IPV6 renumbering painless? Leo Bicknell (Nov 11)
- Re: IPV6 renumbering painless? bmanning (Nov 11)
- Re: IPV6 renumbering painless? Owen DeLong (Nov 11)
- Re: IPV6 renumbering painless? Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 11)
- Re: IPV6 renumbering painless? Owen DeLong (Nov 11)
- RE: IPV6 renumbering painless? Tony Hain (Nov 12)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Leo Bicknell (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Joe Abley (Nov 08)