Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested

Mon Nov 8 22:56:58 UTC 2004

Leo Bicknell wrote:

>I would like to bring to the attention of Nanog an IPv6 policy issue
>that I think is slipping under the radar right now.
>
>The IETF IPv6 working group is considering two proposals right now
>for IPv6 "private networks".  Think RFC-1918 type space, but redefined
>for the IPv6 world.  Those two drafts can be found at:
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-07.txt
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-00.txt
>
>These drafts came up in the ARIN meeting, and I posted my analysis of
>the problems with both at:
>
>http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/2849.html
>
I dont understand much about ipv6. Yes I am now internationaly 
recognized for the ipv6 noob and loser that I am.

What I do know is that ostensibly we need it due to address shortage. 
Its also easy to see that a entire trainload of new technology has been 
hitched up to that wagon. No surprise that people are not pulling 
eachother down in their haste to jump on it

To all of us happily using ip4 does ipv6 offer anything valuable other 
than more space?

Do net admins who dread troubleshooting real networks with 
unrecognizable and unmemorizable addresses exist? Maintaining 
configuration where you will never spot a fat fingered address ever? And 
I mean even those who dont run "Real Networks (TM)"

All those people who curse vendors who make them put in 128 bit key 
software unlock codes, raise your hands. (I actualy memorized one or two 
of them after four years)

Is anybody keeping track of what percentage of ipv6 has already been 
spoken for in some way and what percentage of the categories spoken for 
are utilized in any way?

Yes I know. 128 bits address space is infinite! You couldnt run out if 
you tried! (~100 more /7 proposals like the one mentioned in parent and 
ipv6 is in trouble)

>
>  
>