[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Draft IPv6 Minutes from Atlanta IETF




> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wasserman-ipv6-sl-impact-02.txt

In above document...
   ---
   3.1 The Fundamental Issue
   ...
         - The addresses are unreachable outside of their original
           context.
   ...
   ---

Some may think the above is actually a benefit: all those
organizations using the IPv4 private address spaces will want
equivalent IPv6 space.

They don't use the IPv4 private address space because of the address
shortage. They use them exactly because those addressess cannot be
used to communicate directly with outside internet. They are not
NAT:ed.

Millions of hosts inside corporate networks have only one address: the
private IPv4 address.

Even if IPv6 is enabled, the system administrator WILL not give global
addresses to the internal nodes anyways. If site locals are not
available, they invent something else for the purpose.

The problem of address selection is red herring. In most cases, where
site locals would be employed, the nodes would still have only one
address: the site local address. Only some special nodes at the edges
of the networks would need to deal with both global and site local.

Using IPv4 private addresses as 6to4 addresses for the purpose is a
hack. What is the point? Non-routable is non-routable. I definitely
prefer a clean FEC0:: prefix for the purpose, instead of multiple 6to4
prefixes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------