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

Jeroen Massar wrote:

>>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.

I'm afraid you confuse routability and aggregation.

As is written in RIPE NCC activity plan 2009

	http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ap.html

	To provide a fair, impartial distribution of Internet number
	resources guided by the RIPE community policies based on the
	goals of uniqueness, conservation and aggregation

aggregation is a goal of address policies.

> 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).

That is not a essential problem of NAT, because situation is no worse
than with IPv6 ISPs not giving stable addresses to its customers.

If you pay some ISP enough amount of money, the ISP will give you a
fixed IPv6 address or a fixed IPv4 address+port.

A fundamental problem of NAT was that end hosts did not know its
public address and that end hosts did not restrict source port
numbers, both of which are solvable and were solved.

							Masataka Ohta
> 
> Greets,
>  Jeroen
> 
> (Small hint: There is a reason why PuTTY has IPv6 support :)
>