[137611] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Thu Feb 17 11:44:31 2011
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see
http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for
abuse reporting information)
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <4D5D4CA3.50000@brightok.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 11:44:14 -0500
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>,
Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 17, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 2/17/2011 10:24 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>> It might be worth doing for ISP backbones, and for things like tunnel =
endpoints.
>> For anything else, it's not worth the effort -- and I suspect never =
was.
>=20
> I think several people's point is that it may be useful for the =
CGN/LSN numbering and other special case scenarios where a CPE might be =
compliant and the windows box would be ignorant.
Jack -=20
=20
There's numerous applications, including expanding internal =
applications
such as virtualized servers for which the address space might be =
useful,
if it was actually defined as usable as unicast. =20
Apparently, it is also the case that the operator community wouldn't=20
recognize the usage restrictions that might apply due to the recent=20
reclassification, and would badly hurt themselves by making use of the
space inappropriately. Thus, it is deemed better that nobody have use=20=
of the 1/16 of the IPv4 space (even if your internal use is perfectly=20=
compatible) because some who won't understand might get hurt... =20
;-)
/John
=20=
