On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 11:51:24PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > To sum up, the only reasons I have seen so far and please add to > list if I miss a couple, which is quite probable and very much > related to NATs, which are being discussed for deprecation also... > > - Impact of site-local addressing -- Margaret Wasserman > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wasserman-ipv6-sl-impact-02.tx > t > > The appendix has a part about limitting usage to single sites. > But that has their own implications when the site does get global > connectivity or merge with another company and we are at NAT again. > > And on this list have been named: > > - Merging networks, then using NATs because the address space > is not unique. > -> Use public IP space from your upstream. > If you are not big enough for your own TLA you apparently > haven't got a big or own network so renumbering > should not be much of a pain. Another option: Multihoming. > > - My printer can be reached from the internet. > -> Use a firewall; NAT won't 'protect' you. > > Any others? >
Well, there's my original reason... - My network is operator independant but I'm not a multi-national company or an ISP (thus not in a position to obtain address space directly from a registry). Also... - Ad-hoc networks become restricted to link local addresses and thus a single flat subnet. The latter is perhaps covered by the appendix in the draft, but I do not beleive the former has been addressed. Cheers, Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
