|> I've sometimes wondered why IPv6 doesn't have some number space that is
|> "globally unique but not globally routable" that could be used for packets
|> internal to a site.
|
|How do you get people to do even epsilon paperwork to request such
|space?
People seemed so willing to do such paperwork for non-routable v4 address
space that is was supposedly necessary to make the process hard/expensive to
discourage them from consuming it all. Offer the v6 space on the terms that v4
space was once available (i.e., free with nominal justification documentation)
and I'm sure people will use it. Try to make these allocations another cash
cow with yearly fees and, naturally, people will pick (poorly) random addresses
that will later hurt them.
The same argument applies to NAT. If ISPs make it expensive to get extra v6
addresses (based on the justification that addresses used to be scarce?) then
people will use NAT with IPv6. If ISPs make "stable" v6 addresses (i.e., ones
that they do not deliberately renumber frequently) a premium service then
people will use NAT. Although the standard claim is that NAT breaks the end-
to-end model we all like (and note that I have personally never liked NAT),
NAT shines at preserving the stable-address model that is deeply embedded in
many protocols and applications. NAT has already proved itself: many useful
applications work just fine in spite of the loss of the end-to-end model. The
renumbering model has yet to be proven, let alone retrofitted to many existing
applications.
I happen to think that ISPs will charge a premium for multiple and/or stable
v6 addresses because that is the status quo and because the market will bear
it. Thus, I suspect that NAT will remain quite active if/when IPv6 is deployed.
I think this is unfortunate--again, I'm no fan of NAT--but it's probably too
late to do anything. While it certainly would have been possible to structure
IPv6 in such a way that end users could allocate identity addresses independent
of their providers (I even made a hand-waving proposal to allow for this with
relatively minor protocol modifications) there never seemed to be much interest.
So the market pressures will continue to operate in an IPv6 environment just as
they have in the IPv4 one. All IMHO, of course...
Dan Lanciani
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
