On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Erik Nordmark wrote: > > I have the following things running around in my brain, and they aren't > > converging: > > > > - We need to provide PI addressing in IPv6, or we will > > see wide deployment of IPv6 NAT in enterprises > > and homes. No one seems to be disagreeing with > > this. > > home? > > Having homes go from one, perhaps unstable, IPv4 address to a /48 PA > address is a tremendous improvement. I don't see why homes would require > global PI addresses today. > > On the enterprise side I can see that folks have been bitting or > are concerned about renumbering costs if they were to use PA addresses. > But I don't have any data on how many consider having one PA prefix per ISP > good enough since it allows some graceful cutover when changing ISPs.
One thing I'd like to have people keep in mind is that solutions come with a price, in whatever form. I regard global PI addresses that are supposed to be globally routable having a terrible price. Of course having them would be nice, but it seems to be the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
