Gary, You have correctly assessed what this thread is about. The argument boils down to 'we should prevent you from doing harm to yourself by insisting that scissors were never invented'. That way we don't have to keep telling you not to run with them.
Thinking about it in the shower this morning, it occurs to me that the disconnect stems from a strong desire to get out of the swamp we find ourselves in with IPv4. The problem is that simply standing on the outside of the swamp and saying 'jump over here' will never work. We have to meet people where they are and provide them with stepping stones that allow them to take the incremental step to work their way out. People that run production networks need to keep focus on the real expectations of that first step, or we run the risk of putting it too far away which just prevents progress. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:owner-ipng@;sunroof.eng.sun.com] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 5:45 AM > To: Hesham Soliman (EAB) > Cc: 'Pekka Savola'; Richard Draves; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Limiting the Use of Site-Local > > > > Ladies and Gentlemen, > > First, please excuse my lack of background and intellectual > knowledge in all this discussion. > > Many of the comments that I have read over the past few weeks > regarding this seem to revolve around the "theory" of how it > should work. Theory is great. Many of the people in this > group that post are from acedemia and research areas. I don't > see too many posts from people that are actually trying to > make this all work. > > The comments that "NAT shouldn't be used in IPv6 since we > will have more than enough IPs" is also great, in THEORY! Did > we all think that we would have enough IP numbers when IPv4 > was started? I work for a federal agency that has over > 6,000,000 devices that need IP numbers. Most need access to > the "outside" world. However, do I want all of these devices > visible to the out side world? NO! Yes, we have border > routers and firewalls that block access from many of the > "undesirables" that are out there. > > Even if we get enough IPv6 numbers to ensure that every > device can have a unique number, we will still use NAT. Ok, > federal government and leading edge technology go together > like military intelligence. The use of site-local is a great > proposal. What I think should be done is just like in the > IPv4 world, reserve a block (or a couple of blocks) of > numbers that are non-routable. This will allow companies to > know what nubers they are to use when setting up site-local > numbers based on the number of devices. > > Now, if I have misunderstood the entire context of this post, > please refer back to my opening sentence. > > Gary Allmond > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
