On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Yoav Nir <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. >
s/should not be hard/should statistically not be a problem/ want to now bet your next billion dollar partnership on 'statistically should not be a problem' ? (rhetorical question, your lawyers won't let you anyway, so it doesn't matter what you want) -chris
