Margaret.Wasserman wrote > > I have been speaking to different > > companies here in Israel, and the basic answer is that if I > > can not have site locals and NAT then I will not move to IPv6.
> If these people are happy with IPv4 NAT, why would they want > to move to IPv6? They couldn't need more address space (net 10 > is huge), they obviously don't care about peer-to-peer or > end-to-end connectivity outside their organization, I can't > imagine that they want to deploy any IPv6-only applications > or services... Margret, you are correct. The way that one network person put it "if there are no local addresses then we will just stay with IPv4 for our secure applications, until it is no longer supported." This is not the first time that I have heard that someone was willing to skip IPv6 because of the percieved pain and security threat that standards compliance would entail. But then again these are all people that take security and network administration very personal and very seriously, and the idea of having the accounts recievable (or worse payable) computer with a globaly reachable address scares them to heck. To be honest I stated these concerns back in the spring, and I still haven't seen anything that would work to convince me that this is not what we as a WG are proposing. If someone converts their existing network to a globaly unique address range then what is responsible for filtering all of the critical addresses from sending or recieving packets from the network over the network Interent router? I see this as being moved from the protocol level to that of the network technician, who now needs to explicitly deny individual addresses (or ranges) rather and explicityl allow the permited ranges. Eric -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
