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.
of course, just because there are implementations of SL and that customers
have bought those implementations doesn't mean that widespread use of SLs
is something that IETF should endorse.
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. A lot of people have then told me that IPv6 would help with peer-to-peer communications. With SL this is gone. Even if there might be reasons for a site to not need globally unique addresses, the problem is that at some point in the future that device will be on the net, and instead of renumbering, someone will do IPv6 NAT and the peer-to-peer/end-to-end models are gone. I agree that I don't think the installed base is a problem. If the small installations we have now is a problem, the problem of renumbering these sites with global addresses is not going to become smaller.
History will repeat it self.
- 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
