[ppml] IPv6 flawed?

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Thu Sep 13 13:21:55 EDT 2007

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>Michel Py
>Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 10:37 PM
>To: Paul Vixie; ARIN PPML
>Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv6 flawed?
>Bottom line is: there is currently no substitute for IPv6 PI. The real
>world would probably go for IPv6 NAT instead, but the IETF is
>deadlocked; instead of choosing between the lesser and two evils and
>sacrifice one of the "features", they want to have the cake and eat it
>We could have had IPv6 without PI or IPv6 without NAT but not without
>both. As of today, we have don't have jack.

I disagree.  We have worse than jack because nothing prevents any
network admin from simply picking an unused portion of the IPv6 space
and calling that private and slapping an IPv6 NAT in front of it.

If IPv6 is assigned sequentially and it is as big as everyone claims,
then how soon do you think the RIRs will run out of IPv6 assignments?
10 years?  50 years?  100 years?

I think it would be very easy to look and find a range that won't be
even close to being assigned for another 100 years and set up exactly
the same NAT-based network we have today with IPv4, despite what IETF
wants.  All you really need is the IPv6 NAT device itself - and someone
will build that once there's demand for it.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list