> In the v4 world sites that are, > voluntarily or forcibly, using RFC 1918 address do expect to connect into > the public Internet. They do so because these are the only IP addresses > they have, so what other choice do they have?
for that matter, what other choice do they have using the current address allocation strategies for IPv6? at least in v4 it was once possible to get provider-independent addresses (I've heard it still is possible - though they come at a high price) In v6 we're currently *insisting* on provider-based addresses, making addresses in some ways even more difficult for private sites to get than in IPv4. I understand why this was done, but with current address allocation rules there may be at least as much pressure to use SLs in IPv6 as there is to use 1918 addresses in IPv4. If we were to change things so that sites could get a non-routable provider-independent prefix with about the same ease as getting a domain name *then* there would be less pressure to use SLs. > The pressure to deploy > NATs will only come if we fail to provide these alternatives. I mostly agree - though NATs have also been sold as ways to avoid renumbering and to provide (pseudo-) security and we need to show that there are viable alternatve solutions for these problems also. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
