Re: [6bone] RE: [ipv6-wg@localhost] Update on IPv6 filter recommendation

[Gert Doering <]

Hi,

On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 12:05:23PM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> Is there such a requirement for IPv4 prefixes?  If yes (and I would hope
> so, otherwise why would anyone want RFC1918 addresses when one can get
> "real" IPs), then I think the same should apply for IPv6 prefixes.  

For IPv4, it's not a requirement.

There are certain cases where uniqueness of IP addresses is a MUST (think
"VPN connections in large enterprises" - RFC space quite often just leads to 
collisions and double NAT and more problems), but routeability in the
network out there is really not needed, sometimes explicitely not wanted.

For IPv4 *PA* space, it's kind of implicit, as the whole purpose of
that is to facilitate internet access for an ISP and his customers.

Nevertheless the same rule applies: sufficient reason to get address
space is "uniquely number machines", not "make them visible outside"
(BTDT).

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  54495  (54267)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster@localhost
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299