North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
On 8 Nov 2004, at 14:53, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 02:36:21PM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:I don't know of any applications that require RFC1918 addresses to be deployed. (Clearly, this is not to say there are none.)
I know of lots of networks that use RFC1918 addresses because of a (perceived, whatever) scarcity of IPv4 addresses, but presumably that argument doesn't necessarily follow for v6 networks, where ever customer site gets a /48.
There is some value in RFC1918 addresses being used in v4 in cases where an extensive internal infrastructure is expensive to renumber, and PI addresses are not available. It is not clear that RFC1918 addresses are the only solution to this problem, though.
Since supporting that sort of migration does not require a huge amount of address space or burden on the addressing processes, I see no reason not to have 1918 space in IPv6.
This sounds like a direct path to IPv6 NAT.
Agreed, the proposals (as you outlined; I haven't read them) sound like they are full of holes.However, both of these proposals go well beyond how 1918 space works today, and both make promises of "global uniqueness" that are at best inappropriate, at worst a road to disaster.
However, I worry about any natural assumption that RFC1918-like addresses are required for v6, simply because they are used in v4: it seems to me that the major reason to deploy v6 is to eliminate the very address scarcity that RFC1918 addresses are used to mitigate.
Perhaps the non-availability of RFC1918 addresses would provide a useful incentive for future v6 network architects to install globally-unique addresses on all hosts? Perhaps I am the only one that thinks that would be a good thing ;-)