Well, see my mail to Keith. I think that people have to much strange ideas on what NATs will give them, that anything that will have a "scope" will lead them down that road. What I am failing to understand is what benefits the complexity and additional administration of either GUPIs or GUSLs will give us over just assigning plain IPv6 addresses.What I am failing to understand is what we are looking for. The <insert letter>GUPI model will drive the development of NATs.
Why do you think so?
In particular, why do you think that GUPI addresses would drive theI think both have the potential to drive us down that road. SLs probably more than the other.
development of NATs any more than the current IPv6 site-local addresses?
No. But I fail to see what we gain with creating a special block from where we assign PI addresses. The RIRs can equally well assign PI space from the current IPv6 unicast space. Sure, this will lead to growth in the size of the DFZ, but that is a routing problem.Do you really think that it is realistic to just tell everyone to use provider-assigned addresses throughout their network?
I just get the feeling that we are using to much duck tape to work around a different problem.
We've been getting feedback from network administrators that they needSo let's give them PI space from the RIRs pools of IPv6 addresses. Currently I am more worried about the lack of assignments from the RIRs rather than them assigning to many.
a form of local addressing that allows their internal numbering, firewall
configuration, etc. to be independent of their ISP-provided addresses.
People want to use site-locals for this, but the ambiguity of site-locals
causes all sorts of problems for applications, routing protocols, transport
protocols, etc. especially when running on site border nodes (nodes that
are in more than one site at the same time).
It is my belief that if we ignore this problem, and simply limit site-
locals to disconnected networks (a la RFC 1918 addresses), then IPv6
NAT will arise to allow sites to separate internal addressing from
external addressing.
So let's give them PI space!!! We don't really need more abbreviations, we have the address space so far, we are still far from hitting the roof of the routing table in IPv6....
This would solve the uniqueness problem and take away the NAT worries.
What we really need is a better way to solve this problem, one that doesn't
have the problems of site-local addresses. And, that's why we're discussing
GUPI addresses. Is there a better way to solve this problem that we
haven't considered?
"Real" addresses?
- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
