Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested

Tue Nov 9 03:53:21 UTC 2004

At 10:10 PM 11/8/2004, Randy Bush wrote:

> > To the end user of address space it is absolutely irrelevant how large
> > the total space is or what the size of the routing table is.  What
> > matters is how much cost/effort you need to expend to get your address
> > space, and what you need to use it for.  A guarantee of global
> > uniqueness has an unavoidable (and, in fact, quite significant) cost;
> > some uses of address space don't require global uniqueness; therefore
> > there will be a market demand for non-unique space.
>
>then let them make up addresses.  oh, you mean they don't want
>to collide with global addresses?  so they want nat?  i though
>a major goal of v6 was no nat.

Is it SO hard for people to understand that it's possible today to use 
private address space and public address space in a network WITHOUT using NAT?

In today's networks, printers do NOT need global addresses. Telephones 
which connect only to a PBX in a private network need not have public 
addresses. On those same networks, workstations and servers might have 
public addresses.

We have these neat devices called routers that allow private address 
subnets and public address subnets to talk to one another WITHOUT NAT, 
within an enterprise network.

There was a local scope addressing that some thought would fill this role, 
but then a bunch of folks decided that was a bad idea and shot it.

Sounds like the documentation address block will fill the role of 
supporting telephones, printers, factory floor automation and other devices 
which do not (and in some cases SHOULD NOT) talk to the public Internet.

Please make honest arguments, and stop insisting that private addressing == 
NAT.

>again, you want you cake or want to eat it?

Is it SO hard to understand that some people actually wanted site local 
addressing? I guess it is. That's how at least some folks used RFC 1918...