Elliot,
> Given that if the mechanism exists we know people will develop NAT
> functionality in order to isolate enterprises from IP address changes,
> what is the benefit of going forward at all with IP version 6? A large
> address space is useless if you only need a small one. We already have
> that.
Do you think that people will use the mechanism if it exists - or will they
create such a mechanism if it doesn't exist?
What I mean is that NATs are one of the most successful IETF technologies
of the decade or so (if you consider deployment, use, etc.). Many of us
may not like it, though, however, it seems that NATs have fulfilled a
real need in the market place - some several seem to be:
1) Provider (ISP) independent addresses
2) Increase address space
3) Access Control
... and so forth
Not all of the above reasons will go away with IPv6 - and I am quite sure
that many network administrators will still administer IPv6 networks in
a similar manner as IPv4. However, I still think that IPv6 will bring many
benefits and hopefully people are capable of learning new paradigms.
So, getting rid of site locals doesn't remove much of the motivation, and
there are no ready solutions to fulfill some real needs; which worries me.
Is it possible that by killing site locals, we set the stage for people to
do something worse? Will people still use FE0C, even if it is deprecated?
Will people pick random prefixes for use as site local / private addresses?
What is the amount of work to depreciate site locals - how many RFCs need
to be updated? I'm not convinced that deprecating site locals really solves
anything.
John
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
