North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: IPv6 news

  • From: Gregory Edigarov
  • Date: Mon Oct 17 06:43:56 2005

Just my 5 cents to the topic:

Don't you all think that IPv6 would not be so neccessary for the very long time yet, if the IPv4 allocation scheme would be done right from the very very beginning?
If the allocation policies would be something like the ones for ASn's. I.e. when you ask for IP space allocation you must be in the need to set your own routing policies.
In any other cases you should use private network space with only one IP shown outside the network. Yes, this would be a headache for some appplications like IP telephony,
but, I don't see any problems in making the _correct_ protocols so they could work through NAT.

As what I see now is that a very large address blocks are allocated to large companies, what companies do with them? Correct, they ae installing them as IP's of workstations, when, if IPs would be treated as a very valuable resource from the beggining, they would have to use at max /24 (well, may be 2 or three /24) for access routers.

When they are proposing /48 allocation scheme for IPv6 they must be out of their mind, because in case such allocation will be ineffect, IPv6 address space will end shortly too.

Again, IPv6 is creating more problems then solve. Better solution would be to freeze IPv4 allocation, then force big IPv4 users to return the addresses to the "public pool", and start
allocation from the white piece of paper, doing the things right.

With best regards,