Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested

Thu Nov 11 04:10:42 UTC 2004

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Randy Bush wrote:

> > I could be wrong, I am just a chemical engineer. If this was a
> > distillation column or a raction vessel I might be more sure :
>
> actually, i think you happen to be one of the maybe 25% of
> participants in this discussion that is an actual operator
> on a real network.  rarer and rarer. :-(

I see its time to quit then! :)

>
> and if nanog ain't a reaction vessel, what is?  and i suspect
> a number of participants are too near distillations when they
> type.  :-)
>

Seriously though, Leo's note and concerns about private-use ipv6 are real
issue. I think I'll read (two more days of ipv6 hell it seems) the ietf
lists and send some comments their way. As an operator (security wonk
really despite my love of the distillation and reaction equipments) there
are 'good' and 'bad' in the private addressing schemes.

Good: "allows people to keep their privates private" (basically)
      "permits people to have test and devel systems without wasting
public space"

Bad:  "more hell of 1918"
      "clashes where we wouldn't expect, when we can't afford, with folks
we didn't know"
      "less 'waste' for private peoples"

(others in both categories of course)

good thing ipv6 is infinite and non-exhasutable! :)