Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested

Tue Nov 9 05:30:27 UTC 2004

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 12:14 AM
> To: Daniel Senie
> Cc: Randy Bush; kent crispin; nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 8 Nov 2004, at 22:53, Daniel Senie wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> I think the hard thing to understand is why you would bother 
> using 1918 
> space if you didn't have to.

Yes.

> 
> > In today's networks, printers do NOT need global addresses.
> 
> If they did have globally-unique addresses, I bet they would 
> still work 
> just fine, though.
> 

They would of course.

I'm not sure why the proposal wouldn't block off some space to 
cover "unforseen" circumstances and leave it at that. IIRC, 1918 
came into existence because of clashes with stock SunOS and Solaris and
growth of the internet - for the most part. Much like the need for
example.com to be maintained by IANA so publications can have their
domain.tld examples.

I agree with Leo about fees and RIR responsibility though. There's
no reason *not to maintain the space in a reasonable fashion and that 
costs money. When money is spent, justifications are required. I have
no problem justifying use of endless space regardless of the end. ;)

I understand why people want to make it free. The reality is that it won't 
work that way again. Let's not even go down the "free the network" path.
I fear another RMS song.

YMMV.

-M< 