[75175] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Mon Nov 8 16:30:58 2004
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 08 Nov 2004 14:53:12 EST."
<20041108195312.GA91916@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:37:22 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
In message <20041108195312.GA91916@ussenterprise.ufp.org>, Leo Bicknell writes:
>
>
>
>
>In a message written on Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 02:36:21PM -0500, Joe Abley wr=
>ote:
>> Just out of interest, why do you think 1918-style space for v6 is=20
>> needed?
>
>I think people have found many good uses for IPv4 1918 space, and
>that it is likely they would want to migrate those applications as
>directly as possible to IPv6. Since supporting that sort of migration
>does not require a huge amount of address space or burden on the
>addressing processes, I see no reason not to have 1918 space in
>IPv6.
>
>However, both of these proposals go well beyond how 1918 space works
>today, and both make promises of "global uniqueness" that are at
>best inappropriate, at worst a road to disaster.
>
There are cetainly main uses; one can quibble over whether or not
they're "good"...
That said, see draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-07.txt
In not very different form, it's likely to be approved soon by
the IESG.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
