Subject: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:51:42 -0800

> Ted Hardie wrote:
> I think we then to consider whether the current need
> is for: "non-routed globally unique space" or for
> something else.  If the answer is "non-routed globally
> unique space", then the follow-on question is "Why not
> get globally unique space and simply decide not to
> route it?".

Because such thing does not exist, it's called PI and is not available
to IPv6 end-sites. And if it ever is, it will cost money or other
annoyances to obtain.

Michel.

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:01:11 -0800

Michel,
	I don't think something needs to be provider independent
to fit this bill.  Getting a slice of the global address space from
some provider and choosing not route a portion of it (even
if that portion is 100%) seems to me to create "non-routed
globally unique space".  Are you concerned that doing so
has some impact on the routing system that needs to be
considered?
	Money and other annoyances are certainly concerns we
all face.  In that spirit please understand that keeping site local 
costs
different money and creates different annoyances.
				regards,
						Ted

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:32:15 -0800

Ted,

What happens when you change providers?

Rgds,
-drc

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:03:05 -0800

Hi David,
	Provider of what?  Note that if a provider of address space is not
routing the addresses involved, they have few or no performance
responsibilities in the arena.  They don't even need to polish and 
regrind
the digits periodically; they just go.  It seems unlikely to me 
personally that you
would change providers for performance reasons.
	Back to money. If you are getting a slice of the globally unique
address space from someone to whom it has been delegated, you
may pay them for the privilege.   Those fees could go up, and in that
case, a network might decide to renumber into a cheaper provider's
space to avoid costs.  Given that they are all derived from the same 
sources
and the lack of scarcity in the resource, though, its hard to see this 
as a
major problem, unless  scarcity is created artificially. That would be a
matter for policy debate with the allocating agencies, though, not the 
IETF.
	If you were using some of an allocated portion as routable addresses
and some as unrouted addresses, you might be forced to change the
unrouted addresses as a consequences of choosing someone new to carry
the traffic from the routed portions of your network.  That would carry
the same pain of renumbering it always does.
						regards,
								Ted

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:40:23 -0800

Ted,

> the same pain of renumbering it always does.

Which, of course, implies NAT ("where's there's pain, there's NAT"? 
:-)).

Anyhow, this is the wrong list for this discussion...

Rgds,
-drc

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:46:08 -0800

> Anyhow, this is the wrong list for this discussion...

"where there's pain, there's NAT"--are you sure you have these in the 
right
order? :^)

I'll respond further by private email, as I agree that we're now a bit 
far afield
of the IETF main list's normal function.
							Ted

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:24:39 -0500

Or what if there is no provider (as in default addresses used by a 
software vendor)?

-andy

David Conrad wrote:
>> all face.  In that spirit please understand that keeping site local costs

---

From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:44:57 -0500

At 08:40 PM 3/26/2003, David Conrad wrote:
>Which, of course, implies NAT ("where's there's pain, there's NAT"? :-)).

No. It does not imply NAT. It implies traffic to hosts which are used for 
purposes which do not communicate to the public network.

Could we PLEASE leave NAT out of the equation? Not all hosts in the world 
want or need to be connected outside of the corporate network they belong 
to. Today such hosts are numbered in RFC 1918 space WITHOUT NAT and are 
connected to corporate networks. It's likely, given the line of argument 
you're proposing, that many corporations will just laugh at the IETF, and 
continue to use IPv4 for their private network space.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:54:50 +0100

> Which, of course, implies NAT ("where's there's pain, there's NAT"? :-)).

the more general aphorism is probably

  where there's pain
  people want painkillers
  painkillers don't cure the cause of pain
  painkillers have side effects

not that this helps evaluate the issue (much); my personal take (which is 
largely irrelevant to this list) is that IPv6 applications will be cheaper 
and simpler when the code does not have to treat some addresses differently 
from others; the fewer special cases, the better.

Special cases are pain; in this case, we were able to eliminate one source 
of this pain.

In my opinion, of course.

                   Harald

---

From: "Jeroen Massar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:02:16 +0100

Daniel Senie wrote:

<SNIP>

> No. It does not imply NAT. It implies traffic to hosts which 
> are used for purposes which do not communicate to the public
> network.
> 
> Could we PLEASE leave NAT out of the equation? Not all hosts 
> in the world want or need to be connected outside of the
> corporate network they belong to. Today such hosts are
> numbered in RFC 1918 space WITHOUT NAT and are connected
> to corporate networks. It's likely, given the line 
> of argument you're proposing, that many corporations will
> just laugh at the IETF, and continue to use IPv4 for their
> private network space.

What you are implying here is that using some $random
unroutable address space makes these private hosts secure.

Why don't you just use firewalls and configure your routers
at the correct places?

BTW if a network does IPv6 it will most likely also be
doing RA's, how are you going to configure those 10000
printers to not be using this RA? Taking into account
that DHCPv6 is not completely crystal clear yet.
If DHCPv6 where there you would be configuring all
your hosts that need to use those printers with
"site local" and "global" IP addresses. How and
foremost *why* should an application differentiate
between those addresses? I think at least I won't
like the answer...

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:07:13 -0500

> Could we PLEASE leave NAT out of the equation? Not all hosts in the 
> world want or need to be connected outside of the corporate network 
> they belong to.

true.  but they still need unique addresses.

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:06:43 +0100

> to IPv6 end-sites. And if it ever is, it will cost money or other

SLs won't come for free either. Architecture aside, I prefer people 
that use a service to pay  for it rather than the community as such. 
Then I also happen to think that SLs break the architecture but that is 
something else...

- kurtis -

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 16:06:19 +0200

David,

let's not mix the problem with provider independent addressspace with 
the SL issue. The first needs to be solved anyway, and SLs are not the 
answer.

Best regards,

- kurtis -