Re: Cool IPv6 Stuff

[Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>]

Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2007, Sam Stickland wrote:
>
> > Personally I hate NAT. But I currently work in a large enterprise 
> > environment and NAT is suprisingly popular. I came from a service 
> > provider background and some of the attitudes I've discovered towards 
> > private addresses in enterprise environments are quite surprising. Aside 
> > for the usual proponents of using NAT to hide your internal address 
> > infrastructure (which security always seem to insist upon) quite a 
> > popular design rule of from seems to be "Only carry public addresses on 
> > the public Internet and only carry private addresses on your private 
> > network" :-|
> >
> > If an Enterprise doesn't have a great deal for IP addresses that need to 
> > be routed on the public internet, and they thing that NAT is a _good_ 
> > design choice, it seems to me that they don't have a great deal of 
> > pressure to move to IPv6.
>
> In fact, and call me crazy, but I can't help but wonder how many enterprises
> out there will see IPv6 and its concept of "real IPs for all machines,
> internal and external!" and respond with "Hell No."
>
> Anyone got any numbers for that? I'm happy to admit I don't. :)


Hence the discussion of site-local (dead), ula, ula-c etc.

However widespread use of private address space in ipv4 costs people
huge amounts of money when you have to merge the business processes of
two or more large enterprise networks.


> Adrian