Re: Node Requirements Issue 3

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist]

For what it's worth I agree. If we now specify a RFC1918
like structure
for IPv6, we will be faced with people doing NAT like
structures -  for
whatever reason, and a lot of what is considered the drive
for IPv6 is
gone.

=> Why is it gone ? Not everyone wants NATs and for those who
do, deprecating SL addresses will not help. It will just make
their (Network admins) behaviour less predictable.

Maybe, but from a operator point of view, the advantage of being early on IPv6 is to enable your users to do peer-to-peer services. There are no new services I can launch just because I give out IPv6 address, on the contrary. There is most likely a higher cost involved.

I have long argued that IPv6 only contribution to networking is a
increase in addressing space - there is nothing I can do on
IPv6 that I
can't do on IPv4.

=> Yes there is. The address size itself allows to do things
that you can't do with v4. Check out the SEND WG for example
or MIPv6, or address autoconf....

This are all services / functions I could do in IPv4 as well. Perhaps not with the IPv4 address header though.

A lot of people have then told me that IPv6 would

help with peer-to-peer communications. With SL this is
gone.

=> Obviously, if you choose to use SL for a disconnected
network you're not interested in P2P on a global level.

At least not when I make that choice. That is how a lot of networks with RFC1918 space started out.

If you choose to use SL with globally routable addresses
in the same network, you can get P2P.

If I have globally routeable addresses in the first place to identify my network devices, why would I want SL? If you give people a tool - they will use it, and eventually someone will hurt themselves with it.

=> i don't know why some people try to resist existing
facts. If you can't change it accept it and try to make

I am not resisting facts. I am trying to argue that we should learn from mistakes. There are people who are using RFC1918 space today and are happy with it. There also a number of large organizations that have it and are very limited by it. I don't want us to give out tools with instructions for people with warnings on them. If they are dangerous we should not give them out at all.

the best out of it, i.e. write a BCP to tell people
about the consequences of certain actions. Any attempt
to change the world by deprecating SLs is an exercise
in futility. Much better to educate people and hope that
in time we will reduce the number of myths on the net.

I have still to see an argument as to what there is with SLs that I can't do with globaladdresses?

- kurtis -

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------