nanog mailing list archives
Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:01:36 -0500
In a message written on Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 11:16:04AM -0800, Tony Hain wrote:
The existence of the address space does not require nat. Being stuck in the mindset where there is only one address on an interface leads people to believe that nat is an automatic result local addresses. Assigning a local prefix for local purposes (like a printer or lightswitch) at the same time as a global prefix for those things that need to reach the Internet does not require nat.
It's not clear to me that having multiple addresses on every machine makes anything simpler or easier. In particular, if I'm multi-homed to two networks, the "IPv6 way" seems to have each box have an IP address on each network. Which means each box gets to decide which address to use for outgoing connections. For those of us used to managing this on the central router(s) or nat box(es) that's a rather strange idea. If you want to continue to have central control to balance your traffic then we need an entirely new method to communicate with the end hosts (or maybe even individual applications on the end host) to indicate which network is "preferred". Having to double the size of every ACL in your network (once for the local address, once for the "public" address) does not seem simpler. It also seems dangerous, since almost all devices have a limit to ACL size. As if larger addresses wasn't already enough penality on those boxes now we have to list each machine twice. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the notion that there will be no PI space, is well, laughable. The notion that everyone, no matter how big or how small will add and remove IP Addresses from every device on their network every time they connect or disconnect from an ISP does not sound like a step forward from either public PI space, or from using 1918 space and NAT. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request () tmbg org, www.tmbg.org
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?, (continued)
- Re: IPV6 renumbering painless? Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 13)
- Re: IPV6 renumbering painless? Alexei Roudnev (Nov 13)
- Re: IPV6 renumbering painless? Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 12)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Randy Bush (Nov 11)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 11)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Adi Linden (Nov 15)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 15)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Måns Nilsson (Nov 11)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Randy Bush (Nov 11)
- RE: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Tony Hain (Nov 11)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Leo Bicknell (Nov 11)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Joe Abley (Nov 11)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 11)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Eric Gauthier (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Randy Bush (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Daniel Roesen (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Randy Bush (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Daniel Roesen (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Sascha Lenz (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Steven M. Bellovin (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Ted Hardie (Nov 08)