Subject: Re: "unique enough" [RE: globally unique site local addresses]

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 16:57:31 -0500

> 1. Local, private addresses that do not communicate outside of their site.
> Site-locals are perfect for this, if they are not limited to disconnected
> sites.
> 
> 2. Unique addresses that do not need public Internet access but do need to
> communicate with selected external sites (example customer/supplier VPN). This
> is GUPI.
> 
> 3. Global network layer PI identifiers. Although this is not directly linked
> to the multihoming issue, it is likely that a scalable multihoming solution
> would provide it.
> 
> I do not envision a large-scale deployment of IPv6 without providing all
> three. Also, it would be a hell of a good idea if 2. could migrate to 3.

why doesn't #1 suffice for #2?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 09:12:46 +1100

> why doesn't #1 suffice for #2?

	Keith are you sure you ment this?
	
	#2 works for #1 not the other way around.

	Mark
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 17:37:41 -0500

>         #2 works for #1 not the other way around.

right you are.  I transposed them.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 16:57:31 -0500

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 09:12:46 +1100

Mark

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 17:37:41 -0500

Keith

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 19:27:39 +0100

> No. Scores won't buy it. Let's not forget that one of the reasons 
> behind the considerable success of NAT, despite its huge annoyances, 
> it because NAT does provide some of the PI perks. PA is good for 
> dial-up users and home/soho setups. Bigger, you find NAT, because for 
> many the no-sweat ISP switch is worth more than the NAT-induced 
> problems.
>
> In my experience, the number one reason for going to RFC1918/NAT is an 
> ISP change. The ISP pulls out of a market or tanks, the customer looks 
> at my proposal for renumbering, chokes at the bottom line, and says 
> "make sure we don't have to go through this again next time the ISP 
> bellies up". Welcome to NAT.
>

I am not completely convinced about the above.

It would be really interesting to understand why enterprises decided to 
do NATs instead of PI space. My guess is that many of the companies 
that use NAT do it simply because they can not justify the /24. These 
probably don't qualify as enterprises, but nevertheless there has to be 
a reason to why some enterprises go for NAT, others for PI space. From 
my years at a large carrier I can't say there is a pattern. I wonder if 
it isn't as simple as knowledge. Few know how to actually apply for PI 
space.

Best regards,

- kurtis -

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 16:57:31 -0500

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 10:56:56 +0100

> it isn't as simple as knowledge. Few know how to actually apply for PI

Sure. Their ISP told them it was hard to get space, and/or someone
told them lies about NAT being a security feature. No mystery.

   Brian