IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
jcurran at istaff.org
Thu Feb 17 10:44:14 CST 2011
On Feb 17, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 2/17/2011 10:24 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>> It might be worth doing for ISP backbones, and for things like tunnel endpoints.
>> For anything else, it's not worth the effort -- and I suspect never was.
> I think several people's point is that it may be useful for the CGN/LSN numbering and other special case scenarios where a CPE might be compliant and the windows box would be ignorant.
There's numerous applications, including expanding internal applications
such as virtualized servers for which the address space might be useful,
if it was actually defined as usable as unicast.
Apparently, it is also the case that the operator community wouldn't
recognize the usage restrictions that might apply due to the recent
reclassification, and would badly hurt themselves by making use of the
space inappropriately. Thus, it is deemed better that nobody have use
of the 1/16 of the IPv4 space (even if your internal use is perfectly
compatible) because some who won't understand might get hurt...
More information about the NANOG