nanog mailing list archives
RE: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
From: "David Schwartz" <davids () webmaster com>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 16:40:38 -0800
Just out of interest, why do you think 1918-style space for v6 is needed?
If we could assign every entity who wanted one sufficient non-routable, globally unique space, we wouldn't need 1918-style space. There are, however, three problems with this approach: 1) It encourages massive waste. Perhaps so massive that we would run out of space. 2) There is a cost associated with assigning globally-unique space no matter how you do it. This cost could be too high for some application -- RFC-1918-style space is free. 3) There is a concern that some recipients of this globally-unique unroutable space might use political pressure to get that space routed. This could potentially lead to an explosion of the number of routes in the global table. However, there are huge advantages. Private networks could seamlessly overlay the Internet and each other where desired with no risk of a future merger causing a numbering conflict. I think the first and second problems are solvable. The third problem, however, may be the deal killer. It's a very realistic concern that the technologies we develop and promote can be designed to make things we consider bad easier or harder to do. Technologies can encourage cooperative interoperability or free riding, privacy or interceptability, and so on. DS
Current thread:
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested, (continued)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Leo Bicknell (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Pekka Savola (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 10)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Daniel Senie (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Daniel Roesen (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Pekka Savola (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Daniel Senie (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Stephen Sprunk (Nov 10)
- 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)