[75165] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Pekka Savola)
Mon Nov 8 15:23:31 2004
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 22:22:14 +0200 (EET)
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
Cc: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <EBDB5C7D-31C1-11D9-8E45-000D93B24C7A@isc.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Joe Abley wrote:
> Perhaps the non-availability of RFC1918 addresses would provide a useful
> incentive for future v6 network architects to install globally-unique
> addresses on all hosts? Perhaps I am the only one that thinks that would be a
> good thing ;-)
You're definitely not alone with this feeling :-). It's just that
there are some conceivable scenarios, like intermittent connectivity
(+local connectivity during the outage) which seems to call for either
local addressing or global PI addressing, and the latter has not
gained much momentum..
IPv6 site multihoming for bigger enterprises is also one area where
(at the moment) something like ULAs have some questionable uses.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
