IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

John Curran 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.

Jack - 
 
 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...  

;-)
/John


 



More information about the NANOG mailing list