Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested

Mon Nov 8 19:53:12 UTC 2004

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 
> 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.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20041108/7edd670a/attachment.sig>