On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:53:03 -0400, Edward Lewis
<Ed(_dot_)Lewis(_at_)neustar(_dot_)biz>
wrote:
It's hardly an engineering decision. The sense was that without PI
space, IPv6 will remain in a state that will not get it deployment
experience.
This is a very important point. Without expressing an opinion on the
proposal itself, I'll note that this answers one very important question:
why should an organization deploy v6? The ability to secure PI space is a
very powerful answer for some companies. (Some people will say "and
that's why they use NAT today. True -- but companies who use 1918 space
and NAT get into trouble when they create private interconnects to other
such companies -- or, worse yet, to a group of other such companies that
are working together on something. Now, if they could qualify the
locally-unique address with a site prefix it would be easier, but that's
more or less 8+8 which is what IPv6 addressing should have been from the
beginning... I digress -- that issue was hotly debated when IPv6 was
being created, and though some of us were strongly in favor of it others
were strongly opposed. There was simply no consensus to do the right
thing. Hmm, my biases are showing...)
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf