[75353] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Nilsson?=)
Thu Nov 11 19:52:43 2004
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 01:47:37 +0100
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Nilsson?= <mansaxel@sunet.se>
To: Adi Linden <adil@adis.on.ca>,
Nils Ketelsen <nils.ketelsen@kuehne-nagel.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.CYG.4.58.0411110914470.1720@citabria>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==========3A55B4FEC753D9281E8B==========
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
--On torsdag 11 november 2004 09.36 -0600 Adi Linden <adil@adis.on.ca>
wrote:
> RFC1918 address space is free and plentiful for my purposes. It is
> provider independent. It is globally unique in the sense that no other
> publically routed network is using them. My globally unique address will
> come from my provider of the day. NAT is my technology of choice to
> connect to the global internet, but other solutions are possible.
You are probably going to fare well behind your D-Link residential plastic
box. Most people do, as long as they accept the spoon-feeding media model
and stay away from potentially dangerous things like trying to challenge
who gets to publicise things and whatnot.=20
Anyway, there are other issues with non-unique addresses. Enterprises
*WILL* use them, in large,
expensive-to-renumber-since-we're-stupid-and-don't-use-DNS schemes.
Enterprises merge. I'll gladly hand out the marshmallows to roast on the
crash-and-burn fire when "unique behind my firewall" isn't.=20
=20
> If I understand correctly, ipv6 will force me into using provider
> dependent globally unique address space.=20
Yes, as long as you don't run a LIR. (One can argue whether this is The
Way, I don't agree, but basically, this is what stands for now)
> Unless my provider of the day is
> required to assign me address space that is and/or permanently assigned
> and portable it does not meet my needs. Why not? I am not willing to
> renumber when I change providers.=20
You are stuck in a v4 model. Renumbering is fun and healthy. In a
residential setting, it should be near automagic.=20
> I have no problem using NAT to obtain
> connectivity from provider B using providers A address space internally.
Your applications might have issues. Mine do, and I don't like them
complaining. Unique is Good(tm).=20
> But that only works if provider A is prevented from reusing 'my' =
addresses
> if I terminate my contract.
They are not yours, and why bother anyway? Just digits. (if you say
"security", wrong answer, go back and relearn.)
=20
> And what do I do if I build my network without ties to any provider? Can =
I
> go to ARIN to get globally unique address space, an ipv6 /48? Without
> RFC1918 that would be my only choice to prevent from overlapping my
> network with someone elses.
There is an issue here -- various schemes have been presented (research
ships, planes, anything) that are exotic at best, yet we can't completely
ignore them. However, I do not think non-unique prefixen are the way to go.
See above under "mergers".=20
=20
--=20
M=E5ns Nilsson Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC
MN1334-RIPE
--==========3A55B4FEC753D9281E8B==========
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFBlAgp02/pMZDM1cURAsaUAJ4gO2sEGaPvK+d+T+A3jlfAmYDaewCfdXRZ
zZ47K/C4+vsnS/XIdaFc9ac=
=0qmV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==========3A55B4FEC753D9281E8B==========--
