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: Nils Ketelsen
  • Date: Thu Nov 11 09:38:01 2004 
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 05:18:49PM -0600, Adi Linden wrote:


> There are a number of good and reasonable uses for RFC1918 addresses. Just
> assume a individual/business/corporate LAN with client/server applications
> and statically configured ip numbering. RFC1918 addresses are perfect. NAT
> allows this network to be connected through any provider(s) to the
> Internet. There is no risk of collision of the internal address with
> publically routed addresses.
> 
> To do without RFC1918 type address space it expect to
> 
>     a. Obtain unique, permanent address space for
>        personal/business/corporate use
>     b. Receive this unique, permanent address space
>        at no cost
>     c. Have this unique address space routed via any
>        provider of my choosing

I see this a lot recently: You are mixing up RfC1918 and NAT.

If I have globally unique addresses I can NAT them as well
as 10/8. One has nothing to do with the other. 

Having to NAT RfC1918 addresses to reach the internet, does not imply
that I have to have RfC1918 to be able to do NAT.

Nils