Daniel Senie wrote:
<SNIP>
No. It does not imply NAT. It implies traffic to hosts which
are used for purposes which do not communicate to the public
network.
Could we PLEASE leave NAT out of the equation? Not all hosts
in the world want or need to be connected outside of the
corporate network they belong to. Today such hosts are
numbered in RFC 1918 space WITHOUT NAT and are connected
to corporate networks. It's likely, given the line
of argument you're proposing, that many corporations will
just laugh at the IETF, and continue to use IPv4 for their
private network space.
What you are implying here is that using some $random
unroutable address space makes these private hosts secure.
Why don't you just use firewalls and configure your routers
at the correct places?
BTW if a network does IPv6 it will most likely also be
doing RA's, how are you going to configure those 10000
printers to not be using this RA? Taking into account
that DHCPv6 is not completely crystal clear yet.
If DHCPv6 where there you would be configuring all
your hosts that need to use those printers with
"site local" and "global" IP addresses. How and
foremost *why* should an application differentiate
between those addresses? I think at least I won't
like the answer...
Greets,
Jeroen