>
> On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 10:35 AM, Michel Py wrote:
>
> > RFC1918 is not that bad without NAT, and lots of people use it without
> > NAT as well. If I had any hint that IPv6 NAT will one day be invented
> > and used like IPv4 NAT, I would not have this position, but this is not
> > the case.
>
> People start with an unconnected network, used RFC1918 style addresses,
> no NAT. Then, one day, they decide to connect to the Internet...
> ... and they realize it's "easier" (for some definition of easier)
> to use NAT than getting real address space and renumber their network.
> Now substitute IPv4 by IPv6 and you'll see IPv6 NAT.
>
> - Alain.
Except with SL you don't re-number. You just provide a additional
global address. All your nodes continue to use there existing SL
addresses. The routers advertise a new prefix. The nodes configure
a new address and register it in the DNS and are done.
This is a lot less painful that what is required to go from using
RFC 1918 address to using global IPv4 addresses.
Mark
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
