Re: getting IPv6 space without ARIN (Re: PAT )

[David R. Conrad]

[I suspect this should probably go over to ipng or something, so this'll
be my last post]

> You can't simply banish multihoming by fiat

Wouldn't think of it (always thought the arguments that multi-homing to
different providers wasn't necessary were unrealistic).

But I thought the official solution to multi-homing in v6 was an
(provider allocated) address per interface.  I will admit I haven't been
following this too closely.  Which document(s) did I miss?

> The "TLA allocation registries" then should have no prohibition
> on allocating prefixes which the service providers may or may not route
> in the future.  

If you look at the allocation policies, I think you'll find that this is
the case.

Of course, using this approach, there should be no swamp under v4
either.  

> Without a registry allocating unique addresses, we'll end
> up with NAT all over again.

I would argue that without transparent from the end user's perspective
(not easy, transparent) renumbering you will never get away from NAT.

Tnx,
-drc