Subject: RE: (ngtrans) Re: pinging prefixes - IPv6 is not just for the public Internet

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:26:41 -0700

> From: Steve Deering [mailto:[email-masked]]
>
> Do you think there will be many enterprises that will choose to have
> *no* connection to the public Internet and, therefore, no need or
desire
> for any public addresses?

Steve,

There are a lot of examples of related companies maintaining a set of
"direct connections" -- what Keith called VPN. We may question their
motives; we may well believe that they would be better off just using
the regular Internet, but well, we could just as well show some
humility. They would not spend the huge amount they are spending if they
did not perceive some business need. This need is not going to go away
with IPv6.

Could we manage these back-door connections with global IPv6 address?
Certainly. In fact, Keith is precisely saying that. It is a lot easier
to interconnect globally addressed entities than to use the current
set-up that involves double natting. Should we mandate the use of
"provider based addresses"? That is debatable. Provider based addresses
are designed to make life easy for providers, which implies renumbering,
etc. I certainly see the point of opening a registry of "non
aggregatable network ids", so that sites could acquire a unique /48.
These numbers don't need to be advertised in BGP; but they can
definitely be useful for the management of "back door" connections.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:14:15 -0500

Christian Huitema wrote:
...
> definitely be useful for the management of "back door" connections.

Hate to say it, but 6to4 addresses can be used in exactly this way.

   Brian