[75207] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeroen Massar)
Tue Nov 9 02:58:02 2004
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
Cc: nanog@Merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20041108195312.GA91916@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:55:51 +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--=-dsHEyx4TOc3l74pDjsfv
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 14:53 -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 02:36:21PM -0500, Joe Abley =
wrote:
> > Just out of interest, why do you think 1918-style space for v6 is=20
> > needed?
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
Please read:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-00.txt
That contains most of the answers to your questions ;)
Greets,
Jeroen
--=-dsHEyx4TOc3l74pDjsfv
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/
iD8DBQBBkHgHKaooUjM+fCMRAlP3AJ9x9cNiJTCn4n1rmhoq5FLDIauP/wCgs6bm
D9nIcxOUz1ffq5jILANUpao=
=PSmR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-dsHEyx4TOc3l74pDjsfv--
