Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:47:49 -0400
From: "Bound, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| and this is my biggest fear for the Internet with IPv6.
| These site-locals could undo all we did with IPv6 to restore
| end-to-end architecture for the Internet.
That's nonsense Jim.
We lost the possibility of end to end because we didn't have enough
addresses for everyone. As long as we have enough addresses that
everyone can have one, then end to end remains.
Having even more addresses cannot possibly prevent that, whatever
their nature.
Of course, there's nothing that you, or anyone, can do to force me
to allow your systems to communicate with mine - that's completely
independent of addressing.
At MU, we have undergrad student labs, that we basically filter from
the world - they have no end to end connectivity at all. And that has
nothing at all to do with NAT (of which we have none at all) nor with
1918 addressing (of which we also have none at all). Nor will it have
anything at all to do with site local addresses.
The filtering (using global addressing everywhere) is because we want to
protect the rest of the world from our students' activities (as most of
these systems are in more or less open access labs, we have no reliable way
to tell which person was using which system at any particular time, so
if some system is used to break into somewhere out there, we have no way
of deciding which person was responsible, so there's nothing we would
ever be able to do about it). And secondly, because more traffic costs
us more dollars, and we need to limit how much is being spent.
These people all have indirect access to the whole net, via access ports
that first verify who they are (for both forms of accountability, though
we don't actually generate bills) - but nothing end to end, and addressing
has nothing even slightly to do with it.
Of course, there are people who would accuse me of being anti-social for
using global IPv4 addresses for systems that could use 1918 addressing, and
perhaps with some justification - but being able to return to the world a
bunch of unrelated /26 subnets doesn't really seem like it would be useful
enough for me to switch these systems from the global addresses they are
now using.
Let's try and keep the red herrings in the red sea, and away from this
mailing list, please.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
