[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

Chris Engel cengel at sponsordirect.com
Thu Mar 25 12:02:30 EDT 2010

David Farmer wrote:

> However, could I suggest that we drop the discussion of competing
> technical engineering views of network security.  NAT v. no
> NAT, etc... There is no one size fits all solution, your
> mileage will very, I'll do
> it my way, you do your way, etc...
> Can we just leave it at that and try to bring the
> conversation back to
> how we want policy in this area to work.  We need to enable as many
> people to implement the right solution for them.  And not be arguing
> about what those solutions are, which one is best, and who
> understands
> them better then the other guy.


Thank you for an injection of a good dose of reason into this discussion. As an aside....one of the largest stumbling blocks to my adoption of IPv6 ...aside from the immense cost of testing hardware/software compatability is the concern that functionality I depend upon every single day (including NAT) won't be supported under it.

You are spot on...anything designed to appeal to a wide audience needs to be flexible enough to allow members of that audience to work in different ways....to work in ways that EACH of them feels comfortable with...rather then trying to force everyone into a single box.

For me...all I really want is something roughly the equivalent of RFC 1918 space in IPv6... ULA-Random should roughly cover that. Then hopefully if there are enough people with concerns like myself we can drive some vendors to provide NAT like solutions for us to use under IPv6... and those that aren't interested in them can use whatever solution they see best.

Even though I'm not particularly interested ULA-C myself...it seems pretty clear to me that there will be a significant segment of folks that want Address space that is both registered uniquely to them...AND designated as "Not to be routed globaly".

Christopher Engel

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list