Subject: RE: (ngtrans) private networks under 6to4-04

From: "Klein, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 18:35:03 +0300

Greg,

I agree with Keith, I am looking for private networks that will not be
connected to any ISP. Thus when I have my 100 sites I would then need to
register for my own public prefix as if I were an ISP. Rather than using a
private range for internal connectivity and registered addresses where
Interconnectivity would be required. Thus at most I would need 1 NAT
conversion with only one Registered address persite or per overall network.

Or is it your recommendation that every company go and request their own
Public prefix for every computer at their sites? If so then you loose any
gain in addresses, as every organization or company will have to request a
public prefix based on their anticipated growth at all sites. 

This would reduce the available addresses almost as fast as the current
IPv4.

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Moore [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 6:04 PM
To: Greg Maxwell
Cc: Klein, Eric; Brian E Carpenter; Sowmini Varadhan;
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: (ngtrans) private networks under 6to4-04 

> With IPv6 you can use a public prefix on an otherwise disconnected
> network.

sure you can, but how are you going to get a public prefix?
normally you would get a prefix from your ISP, but if you're on
a disconnected network then you might not have an ISP.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 12:17:06 -0400

> I agree with Keith, 

I'm don't think we agree in general.  I was just pointing out that the 
notion of "just use your public address" doesn't always work - at least,
not without some mechanism by which unconnected folks can get their
own chunk of (nonroutable) address space.

> I am looking for private networks that will not be

private address space causes major problems because eventually you 
either need to connect at least some hosts on the private network 
to the global internet, or you need to connect multiple private networks
together and you get address conflicts as a result.   

(you can use a MAC address to make a v6 address globally unique
and eliminate conflicts, but if you do connect to the outside world
you probably don't want hosts to advertise their MAC addresses to 
the outside world...

having different addresses for private vs. public access, or even
havng multiple addresses for a host where you need to use a different
source address based on which destination you are trying to contact, 
essentially requires applications to be aware of network topology.
it also frustrates development of distributed applications if you can't
use the same address everywhere to reach the same process.

address translation is even worse.  there's no way in general
that an application can work around NAT brain-damage.
 
> This would reduce the available addresses almost as fast as the current

this needs a bit more justification to make a credible argument.

Keith

---

From: Greg Maxwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 11:48:02 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, 2 May 2000, Klein, Eric wrote:

> connected to any ISP. 

I'm not sure of what procdure there is for obtaining non-isp-agretted
global prefixes. There should be one.. You'll need to reprefix if you want
to connected the disconnected network to the Internet if you have one, but
not to peer with other networks.

Hmm. Does anyone know if any consideration was made for non-globally
reachable sites to have global prefixes prefixes for the purposes of
peering? (i.e. "I don't want to connect my network to the internet, just a
bunch of other simmlar networks (who may or may not be on the internet)
and I don't care about route table growth among these sites so aggreation
is not important").

> Thus when I have my 100 sites I would then need to

No. You would obtain a public prefix for every site.

> conversion with only one Registered address persite or per overall network.

Why bother with the NAT, you get one prefix per site then all equipment at
the site gets an address, you advertise your prefix to your peers.

> Public prefix for every computer at their sites? If so then you loose any

No, not one prefix every computer. I don't know what any of my computers
would do with 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 (a /48) IP addresses.

> public prefix based on their anticipated growth at all sites. 

You get one prefix per site, or perhaps one prefix per company and use the
/48 or /80 per site.

> This would reduce the available addresses almost as fast as the current

Hardley. There are enough prefixes available to get every person on earth 
a prefix for the long forseeable future.