ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...

2003-03-26 14:02:46
Tony Hain wrote:
Trying to use SL for routing between sites is what is broken.

But that's not all...

The space
identified in RFC 1918 was set aside because people were taking whatever
addresses they could find in documentation.

Not as I recall. Jon Postel received several requests for extraordinarily large chunks of address space, particularly from Europe. I believe Daniel Karrenberg might have more information. This forced his hand. In addition, people such as Paul Vixie were trying to do the best they could to make random address space sork, which is admittedly a trick in a small name space. Recall at the time that CIDR was a new thing. You couldn't simply use a portion of network 10, for instance. The same cannot be said for IPv6.

SL was set aside because
there are people that either want unrouted space, or don't want to
continuously pay a registry to use a disconnected network.

Any address space can be unrouted address space. Fix the underlying problem, Tony. Making renumbering easy. If we don't do that, IPv6 is no better than Ipv4 (with the possible exception of MIPv6).

It is far
cheaper to train an app developer (though there may be an exception or
two) to deal with it than it is to fix all the ad-hoc solutions that
people will come up with to replace SL.

Fix the renumbering problem and this isn't an issue.

Eliot