Re: The list of current Issues in IPv6 Policy

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, Roger Jorgensen wrote:
> Not sure that was a good example, a better example of the need for a 
> RFC1918 alike address space in IPv6 would be something that are Very 
> popular where I am from, "LAN" or LAN-party.
> 
> To explain what it is I have to use a few examples, You have TG 
> (http://www.gathering.org) as a very big example of it (yeah I know they 
> are using regular IP's assigned by someone today), but a another 
> example are some friends that get together for a weekend to play games, 
> they hook their PC's together and play the entire weekend (no sleep, 
> just cola, pizza and computer games:)
> Some of these "LAN" are so big that they have divided the network up 
> into smaler parts and use some sort of routing between them.
> What address space should they use? Sure they can just grab any address 
> and use it since it's a closed network, but wouldn't it be better and 
> "cleaner" if there was a address range assigned for this kind of closed 
> networks? 

Uhh.  It's not 1993, it's 2003 :-).  Ten years ago those parties weren't 
connected to the Internet, heck, they weren't even using IP. (Yeah, I've 
been to a couple of those :-).

People don't typically gather in places where there is no Internet 
connectivity at all.  Or, if they do, there's no harm just using any 
addressing at all.
 
So, I fail to see why one would need local addressing for such events at 
all.

> Another example of usage of RFC1918 address are a semi big corporation 
> that for some unknown reason do not want to be connected to Internet but 
> still are using IP internal. Are probably lots of other examples to for 
> the use of RFC1918, I just listed a few.

And how many of these are *Totally* unconnected to the Internet?  About 
zero, I guess? :-).  There might be certain networks which do not connect 
to Internet on purpose, but the administrators of those networks are 
certainly Internet-savvy, and could very well request unique, 
global address space for those networks as well.
 
> There are enough addresses available in IPv6 and it wouldn't hurt to 
> assign parts of it for some kind of RFC1918 alike scenario. 

It's just that it's difficult to see any real need for RFC1918 like 
scenarios; the potential for hurt seems much more than the potential for 
gain.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________
global-v6 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6