[ppml] IPv6 flawed?

[Azinger, Marla]

I luve the Um soo...

Um no...ULA-C would not negate PI.  So see ...your comment right there, just tells me there is unnecessary "fear" getting in the way of ULA-C getting used.

Cheers!
Marla

-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 8:37 AM
To: Azinger, Marla
Cc: Brian Johnson; Ted Mittelstaedt; Kevin Kargel; ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv6 flawed?


Um, no... ULA-C is not a good way to address private space.  ULA-C is  
a bad
way to create PI under the table.

Owen

On Sep 17, 2007, at 8:26 AM, Azinger, Marla wrote:

> Hmmm...Now...what was that long drawn out conversation....that  
> addressed private space in a good way.....oh yeah!  ULA-C!
>
> Cheers!
> Marla
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Brian Johnson
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 7:00 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the  
> ARIN Public Policy
> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN  
> Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the  
> ARIN Public Policy
> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN  
> Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.