<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: [ipv6-wg@localhost] Re: [lir-wg] IXP networks routing

  • To: "Peter Galbavy" < >
  • From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist < >
  • Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:12:21 +0100
  • Cc: "Gert Doering" < >
    < >
    < >
Well, you could also argue that what Peter is trying to do is not what
the intent of IPv6 is at all. The intent of IPv6 is that everyone can
use public address space and we could get some interesting services
working. That was ofcourse until the "let's copy RFC1918 into IPv6 and
launch site-locals which  preferably are globally unique" mob took
over....sarcastic? me? never...
Sorry, but am I missing something ? It has been hard enough for some of us
to slowly push large corporations away from requiring (companies like) us to
use X.25 over leased lines to using IPsec etc. Trying to mandate those
I won't argue with you here.
people use publicly routeable IP space for what they consider 'confidential'
traffic is a non starter.
Problem is that site-locals and/or RFC1918 won't make your data more secure or more confidential. Driving this fact through will be as much of a challenge as converting from X.25.

The same people arguing for private addresses are also slowly realizing that they are missing a number of applications that others are using to lower costs and gain in technical advancement. Some of these people argue that the solution is to either make private addresses globally unique or require that applications developed in the IETF must support private addresses. This complexity will cost money, which is a fact that many fail to realize. IPv6 would have given us the option to start over, make a cleaner and cheaper design that is easier to maintain. Sadly we seem to be moving in the other direction.

- kurtis -



  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>