[125876] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Palmer)
Sun Apr 25 19:33:44 2010
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:32:30 +1000
From: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20100426082033.335e28da@opy.nosense.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:20:33AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:21:16 -0400
> Richard Barnes <richard.barnes@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Moreover, the general point stands that Mark's problem is one of bad
> > ISP decisions, not anything different between IPv4/RFC1918 and IPv6.
>
> My example, although a bit convoluted to demonstrate a point, is about
> robustness against Internet link failure. I don't think people's
> internal connectivity should be dependent on their Internet link being
> available and being assigned global address space. That's what the
> global only people are saying.
>
> (how is the customer going to access the CPE webserver to enter ISP
> login details when they get the CPE out of the box, if hasn't got
> address space because it hasn't connected to the ISP ...)
I've been using IPv6 for about 18 seconds, and even *I* know the answer to
that one -- the link-local address.
- Matt
--
"You are capable, creative, competent, careful. Prove it."
-- Seen in a fortune cookie
