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: Randy Bush
  • Date: Mon Nov 08 16:26:03 2004 
>>> 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