[ppml] IPv6 flawed?

Brian Johnson bjohnson at drtel.com
Mon Sep 17 10:00:22 EDT 2007

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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list