Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested

Tue Nov 9 07:55:51 UTC 2004

On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 14:53 -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> 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.

Please read:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-00.txt

That contains most of the answers to your questions ;)

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20041109/90ea7d5a/attachment.sig>