nanog mailing list archives
Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
From: Daniel Senie <dts () senie com>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:53:21 -0500
At 10:10 PM 11/8/2004, Randy Bush wrote:
> To the end user of address space it is absolutely irrelevant how large > the total space is or what the size of the routing table is. What > matters is how much cost/effort you need to expend to get your address > space, and what you need to use it for. A guarantee of global > uniqueness has an unavoidable (and, in fact, quite significant) cost; > some uses of address space don't require global uniqueness; therefore > there will be a market demand for non-unique space. then let them make up addresses. oh, you mean they don't want to collide with global addresses? so they want nat? i though a major goal of v6 was no nat.
Is it SO hard for people to understand that it's possible today to use private address space and public address space in a network WITHOUT using NAT?
In today's networks, printers do NOT need global addresses. Telephones which connect only to a PBX in a private network need not have public addresses. On those same networks, workstations and servers might have public addresses.
We have these neat devices called routers that allow private address subnets and public address subnets to talk to one another WITHOUT NAT, within an enterprise network.
There was a local scope addressing that some thought would fill this role, but then a bunch of folks decided that was a bad idea and shot it.
Sounds like the documentation address block will fill the role of supporting telephones, printers, factory floor automation and other devices which do not (and in some cases SHOULD NOT) talk to the public Internet.
Please make honest arguments, and stop insisting that private addressing == NAT.
again, you want you cake or want to eat it?
Is it SO hard to understand that some people actually wanted site local addressing? I guess it is. That's how at least some folks used RFC 1918...
Current thread:
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested, (continued)
- 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 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 Paul Gilbert (Nov 08)