[ppml] IPv6 flawed?

 I personally have no opposition to IPv6 "private space, so long as it
is private and not routable.  Where I do have problems is where people
want pseudo-routable space that is uniquely assigned and registered and
advertised.  That is just an end run around PI/PA.

The renumbering issue is handled nicely within IPv6 by using the network
prefix functionality.  IPv6 interfaces by design can hold multiple
addresses, and can superimpose a network prefix on the most significant
portion of one or more of those addresses. By numbering the least
significant portion and using the prefix, renumbering becomes trivial.

Kevin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Johnson [mailto:bjohnson at drtel.com] 
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 9:00 AM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Kevin Kargel; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] IPv6 flawed?
> 
> Ted wrote:
> > 
> > You don't understand it because you are large enough to 
> have your own 
> > allocation.
> > 
> > For the orgs too small to meet justification requirements to get a 
> > direct allocation of IPv6 from an RIR, it is a big problem.
> > 
> > They do not want to get IPv6 from an ISP AKA "local 
> internet registry"
> > and put time and money into numbering all their servers and 
> suchlike - 
> > because if they find a better deal down the street from the 
> ISP's (I 
> > mean local internet registry's) competitor, they want to be free to 
> > dump the existing ISP and go to the competitor without having to 
> > renumber internally.
> > 
> > This IMHO is the single largest reason so many orgs adopted NAT.
> > 
> 
> I agree with Ted that there is a noticeable benefit to having 
> NAT capability, but not that it is the "single largest reason 
> so many orgs adopted NAT." It does act as a pseudo-security 
> feature, and it does make a network "portable".
> 
> I would have no problem with a say a /32 of IPv6 being set 
> aside as "private space." This will only increase the 
> longevity of IPv6 when used by companies who only need 
> limited IP addresses and want to use private space and NAT. 
> What arguments are there against this?
> 
> - Brian
> 
>