On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:43 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> Changing the message from "you don't need NAT anywhere" to "sure, you >> can use RFC 4193 ULAs, just don't let us see them on the Internet" >> would be a big help. > > in ipv4, rfc1918 space was needed because of address scarcity. in ipv6, > you could use global space inside a nat, if you need a nat. we do not > need to perpetuate the 1918 mess.
Not having to "buy" address space, or "lease" it from whatever ISP you're using at a certain point in time is a feature, not a workaround. RFC 1918 is only a mess if you need to make sure multiple organizational networks do not overlap. With the amount of subnets available in ULAs this should not be hard. Yoav
