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 10:39:16 -0500
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 03:00:04AM +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Randy Bush wrote:In today's networks, printers do NOT need global addresses.let me make sure i understand this. in order not to have to pay for the address space for a my enterprise's printers, they are supposed to make separate ether runs to them parallel to all the workgroup runs, so they can route them funny. then they are supposed to maintain all that routing cruft, port(s) on the routers, ...not that it's a great plan, and excepting the popular router vendor 'features' with respect to multiple ip addresses per interface... you CAN put more than on broadcast domain on a single ethernet LAN.
As this is about IPv6: IPv6 devices MUST be able to handle multiple Addresses on one interface. As this is a requirement anyway it is reasonably safe to assume all devices on an IPv6 network are able to do that. As long as you do not assume Vendors will build non-standard. If you start thinking into that direction, anything is possible, so it would be unplannable anyway.
this does make for some 'fun' in configuration management and in deconflicting address space usages across larger enterprises as well. In general each ip device really ought to have a globally unique ip address, even if you never plan on connecting a network (something that would live more than a testing cycle) to the global internet. business plans change, partners come and go and technology is always making it easier to do things 'on the network' than off.
With IPv6 and autoconfiguration, you will at least have a link local address. So even with your setup, you will have a link-local and a globally unique address on each network interface. Nils
Current thread:
- RE: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested, (continued)
- RE: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested David Schwartz (Nov 08)
- RE: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Randy Bush (Nov 08)
- Message not available
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Randy Bush (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Daniel Senie (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Joe Abley (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Randy Bush (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Simon Lockhart (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Pierfrancesco Caci (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Daniel Senie (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 10)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Nils Ketelsen (Nov 11)
- RE: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested David Schwartz (Nov 08)
- RE: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Paul Gilbert (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Leo Bicknell (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Adrian Chadd (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Leo Bicknell (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Michael . Dillon (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Jerry Eyers (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Randy Bush (Nov 09)