Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested

[Randy Bush <randy () psg com>]

> > > I must admint, I'm really not up on the more subtle aspects of v6
> > > addressing nor have I read the drafts you posted, but I've never
> > > understood why we needed a new set of RFC1918-like IPv6 space.
> >
> > because there is not enough v6 address space?
> > because we like nats?
>
> There's no PI (yet) for IPv6, so NAT becomes necessary again. People
> don't like to give up the independence they have in IPv4 world.
>
> > because we think we can't get space?
>
> For non-ISPs this is fact, given that there is no PI (yet). ISPs are
> allowed to multihome and have their independent address space, other's
> are told to be happy with vendor lock-in.
>
> IPv6 won't fly like that. But that's no news, but still heads are
> sticking deeply in the sandbox, unfortunately.

let me see if i understand.  you propose a technical cluster
<bleep> with which we are already horrifyingly familiar to fix
an administrative problem?  have i got it right?

randy