On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 02:25:00PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
More to the point, it seems to me the working group is highly enterprise focused, and seems to want to give enterprises what they (think) they want with little concern for how it impacts the global Internet.
Well, thinking about the enterprise for a change might be a good idea, as the Enterprise markets are the one paying most of the ISPs in the end. And with the ISP-centric approach of the current address policies there is absolutely no chance IPv6 will ever make it to the big market. As long as I can neither multihome nor NAT my network, I have no chance to be independant of a provider. As the provider business itself is extremely unstable that is something no enterprise can possibly want. So there must be a way to be provider independent on my network, otherwise I am pretty much doomed. I do hate NAT and I think it is a major pain. Providers decided (they are the ones active in the working groups on Address policies, remember?) that their customers should not be able to be multihomed, because the equipment to handle this is too expensive, so I at least want a globally unique private address, so I do not have to double NAT, when I connect my network to some customers or suppliers network. I agree, that the proposed solutions are not perfect, but they at least give enterprise network admins the chance to do the right thing. With RfC1918 (shall we call it site local addressing, maybe?) I am almost forced to use the same address space as my customers and suppliers do. The two approaches mentioned only will give collisions, when one side uses them inappropriately. I think having the chance to do it right is better then not having it. Nils