On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Yoav Nir <ynir(_at_)checkpoint(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:43 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Changing the message from "you don't need NAT anywhere" to "sure, you
can use RFC 4193 ULAs, just don't let us see them on the Internet"
would be a big help.
in ipv4, rfc1918 space was needed because of address scarcity. in ipv6,
you could use global space inside a nat, if you need a nat. we do not
need to perpetuate the 1918 mess.
Not having to "buy" address space, or "lease" it from whatever ISP you're
using at a certain point in time is a feature, not a workaround. RFC 1918 is
only a mess if you need to make sure multiple organizational networks do not
overlap. With the amount of subnets available in ULAs this should not be hard.
s/should not be hard/should statistically not be a problem/
want to now bet your next billion dollar partnership on 'statistically
should not be a problem' ? (rhetorical question, your lawyers won't
let you anyway, so it doesn't matter what you want)
-chris