[address-policy-wg] RE: The price of address space

Masataka Ohta wrote:
[..]
>> You can do that, your competition will love you for it.
> 
> Considering that route aggregation is also an important goal of
> address policy, which IPv6 failed to address, we do need something
> else.

That is a routing issue, not an addressing issue (which is what IPv6
solves), and it definitely is not a policy issue; as such it doesn't
below on this list anyway.

>>> As you don't accept the answer "never", discussion on whether it will
>>> actually be "never" or not is inevitable.
> 
>> Give me one valid technical reason why I would accept "never"?
> 
> Because, as you failed to argue against, it is no better than IPv4
> with NAT.

We'll talk further when you realize what happens when you are trying to
SSH from your cozy island vacation resort to your computer at home which
is behind several layers of NAT (at least the one at home, as your ISP
will still only give you 1 ISP-NATted address and thus also the ISP
NATted one, possibly a couple of extra as the ISP didn't get any
addresses either).

Greets,
 Jeroen

(Small hint: There is a reason why PuTTY has IPv6 support :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090724/1f1f1ebb/attachment.sig>