Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
Jerry Eyers
jeyers at sloancc.net
Wed Nov 10 07:17:41 UTC 2004
Ok, let me throw some cold reality water on this discussion...
Having built the IP network for the second largest supermarket
in the US, worked on the networks for the largest supermarket
in the UK, the largest 'chemist' in the UK, built the largest
website in the world (2.4 million cc transactions/month with over 460
servers) and coordinated an IP renumber for over 3,300 stores
with 30+ devices each, I can say that insisting companies renumber
their networks to fit into public IPv6 addresses just isn't going to happen.
I have devices that have no need, never will have a need, to ever
talk outside of the internal networks, nor do I want some
brain dead user to drop some stupid little device on the network
and tada, route access to some of my inside network simply because
the addresses are valid. I want my inside addresses to be
non accessible from the 'real world', ever. If IPv6 can't offer me
the luxury (even if it is not valid or justified) then I see no reason
to change from IPv4 to IPv6 in the core. Just do it on the
periphery. It is VERY expensive to a corporation to accomplish
a renumber, and if there is no benefit, then.....
I imagine my position is not far off from MOST of the corporate
network infrastructure maintainers out there. You must remember
to take us into account when talking about global addressing
policies. In the end, we pay most the bills. :-)
Jerry
More information about the NANOG
mailing list