North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested

  • From: Daniel Roesen
  • Date: Mon Nov 08 16:14:58 2004

On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 01:04:28PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> > 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.


Regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0