But can't you do that perfectly well with PI or PA, firewall it as appropriate and use regular DNS?
Even if two "unique local address spaces" were carved out of PI or PA, restricted from public access, and allowed to intercommunicate as a sort of unauthenticated unencrypted private network using public DNS it still seems that either PI or PA would suit the need very functionally. If it's all about renumbering avoidance, and we made an acronymn for "Provider Independent" space I suspect we might refer to it as PI. > -----Original Message----- > From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 9:17 AM > To: Jeroen Massar; bill fumerola > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt > > Jeroen, > > Touching on just one aspect of your thoughtul post: > > > > DNS is an integral part of addressing and if we're going to move > > > forward with ULA-C as delegated > > addressing then let > > > us move forward with addressing in its entirety. > > > > So you want a disconnected address space which gets > connected to the > > Internet? Sorry, but that more or less really implies NAT. > > I wouldn't call it a "disconnected address space which gets > connected to the Internet" but rather a "unique local address > space which gets connected to other unique local address > spaces" and IMHO I don't see any implication for NAT there. > > Fred > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
