Subject: RE: Moving forward on Site-Local and Local Addressing

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 20:22:05 -0700

Michael,

For a change I mostly agree (will detail below what I don't like) with
what you just posted, especially:

> Michael Thomas wrote:
> so even these small sensible steps that you propose
> nonetheless seem grave in their global implications.

and 

> But I'm sorry, if NAT's become a de-facto necessity
> for v6 native networks (putting aside the need for
> v4/v6 NAT's), then I find the entire premise of ipv6's
> utility deeply undermined. Quite possibly fatally.

The same is true if we create a swamp again and allow individual /48s in
the global routing table. Then IPv6 will become IPv4 with more bits, and
in the current economy the net result will be more NAT-aware apps. I'm
sorry to say it bluntly, but today IPv4 is unavoidable and if the only
edge IPv6 has is a bigger address space I'm afraid it won't be enough to
cut it.

I welcome some debunking on the following assertions:

1. Even if we say that NATv6 is evil, there is little we can do to
prevent it from happening except providing a solution that would bring
somehow similar advantages.

2. Even if we say that individual /48s in the global routing table are
evil, there is little we can do to prevent it from happening except
providing a solution that would bring somehow similar advantages.

However,

3. If we say that NAT is acceptable, half-acceptable, maybe OK in the
short term (or whatever) it WILL happen and there will be no way back.

4. If we say that individual /48s in the global routing table are
acceptable, half-acceptable, maybe OK in the short term (or whatever)
they WILL happen and there will be no way back.

In other words, it IPv6 becomes IPv4 with the same NAT crap and the same
BGP stability issues due to an oversized routing table, it ain't part of
my network designs.

Back to what I disagree with, you seem to blend the PI issue and the SL
issue into the same problem. They are unrelated.

Michel

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:08:46 -0400

> they WILL happen and there will be no way back.

they're not quite the same problem, because they propagate at different
rates. we could deal with a few/48s in the global routing table.  we
cannot deal with having NATs installed in customer IPv6 networks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:54:31 +0200

> edge IPv6 has is a bigger address space I'm afraid it won't be enough 

IPv6 IS IPv4 with more bits.

> somehow similar advantages.

We don't need to encourage it...

- - kurtis -