[75308] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nils Ketelsen)
Thu Nov 11 09:36:59 2004
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:36:27 -0500
From: Nils Ketelsen <nils.ketelsen@kuehne-nagel.com>
To: nanog@Merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@Merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.CYG.4.58.0411081709210.616@citabria>; from adil@adis.on.ca on Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 05:18:49PM -0600
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 05:18:49PM -0600, Adi Linden wrote:
> There are a number of good and reasonable uses for RFC1918 addresses. Just
> assume a individual/business/corporate LAN with client/server applications
> and statically configured ip numbering. RFC1918 addresses are perfect. NAT
> allows this network to be connected through any provider(s) to the
> Internet. There is no risk of collision of the internal address with
> publically routed addresses.
>
> To do without RFC1918 type address space it expect to
>
> a. Obtain unique, permanent address space for
> personal/business/corporate use
> b. Receive this unique, permanent address space
> at no cost
> c. Have this unique address space routed via any
> provider of my choosing
I see this a lot recently: You are mixing up RfC1918 and NAT.
If I have globally unique addresses I can NAT them as well
as 10/8. One has nothing to do with the other.
Having to NAT RfC1918 addresses to reach the internet, does not imply
that I have to have RfC1918 to be able to do NAT.
Nils
