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: Joe Maimon
  • Date: Mon Nov 08 17:58:01 2004

Leo Bicknell wrote:

I would like to bring to the attention of Nanog an IPv6 policy issue
that I think is slipping under the radar right now.

The IETF IPv6 working group is considering two proposals right now
for IPv6 "private networks".  Think RFC-1918 type space, but redefined
for the IPv6 world.  Those two drafts can be found at:

These drafts came up in the ARIN meeting, and I posted my analysis of
the problems with both at:

I dont understand much about ipv6. Yes I am now internationaly recognized for the ipv6 noob and loser that I am.

What I do know is that ostensibly we need it due to address shortage. Its also easy to see that a entire trainload of new technology has been hitched up to that wagon. No surprise that people are not pulling eachother down in their haste to jump on it

To all of us happily using ip4 does ipv6 offer anything valuable other than more space?

Do net admins who dread troubleshooting real networks with unrecognizable and unmemorizable addresses exist? Maintaining configuration where you will never spot a fat fingered address ever? And I mean even those who dont run "Real Networks (TM)"

All those people who curse vendors who make them put in 128 bit key software unlock codes, raise your hands. (I actualy memorized one or two of them after four years)

Is anybody keeping track of what percentage of ipv6 has already been spoken for in some way and what percentage of the categories spoken for are utilized in any way?

Yes I know. 128 bits address space is infinite! You couldnt run out if you tried! (~100 more /7 proposals like the one mentioned in parent and ipv6 is in trouble)