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

[Pekka Savola <]

On Thu, 22 May 2003, Bill Manning wrote:
> % So what?
> % 
> % If those networks decide to use different rules for IP/IPv6 address
> % allocation and usage, why should we care?
> % 
> % If they decide to become part of "The Internet", then they are part of
> % the global routing table/system.
> 
> 	Hum... where to begin.  First off,  it seems that you are making the
> 	assertion that entities will make the unconnected/connected transition
> 	-once- which emperical evidence suggests is not always true.  In the
> 	past decade, there is a significant body of evidence that networks
> 	and nodes are gaining mobility. part of that mobility is that 
> 	they "disconnect" from all or part of the net for periods of time,
> 	sometimes for milliseconds, sometimes for months/years.
> 
> 	recognising this as a basic feature of internetworking, one would
> 	hope that a consistant suite of addressing guidelines would be
> 	applicable, regardless of the state of "connectedness".

It's fine to request address space for private networks.

It's fine to connect such private networks to some other networks, even 
one sometimes referred to as the Internet, frequently or infrequently.

However, it is not fine to assume you could any form of addressing at all 
and expect it to be reachable.

If you connect to the Internet, you play by its rules, not by the rules of 
your private networks.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings