Re: [ipv6-wg@localhost] Re: [lir-wg] IXP networks routing
- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:55:16 +0100
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.
Sorry - my response wasn't clear as I think my point was made
elsewhere in
the thread - I am not interested in this aspect, but this is the
aspect that
drives/motivates some ludite network admins in old, slow
organisations. They
actually believe X.25 networks to be more secure than the 'public'
Internet.
Don't tell anyone, but I have worked serving IBM systems and
installations. I know more about X.25 than I want to. Been there, done
that, got the ulster.
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
My point, to start again, is that organisations need to be able to
rely on
an addressing scheme that is completely independent of 'ISP of the
month'
that they may be using so that they can avoid try to use horrid
NAT/RFC1918
hacks to talk over private (IPsec or physical) connections. It is all
very
cute to talk about automatic renumbering etc. but not in this context
- you
CANNOT do it, either technically or politically.
This is another issue though. portable addressspace, or PI, or what we
want to call it is something that IPV6 is missing. And that is a
problem. Just like multihoming. I agree that automatic renumbering
won't get us anywhere, we need to solve the real problem. And
Site-locals will not help.
- kurtis -
