[address-policy-wg] Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]

poty at iiat.ru wrote:
> Maybe you are right, but it doesn’t prove that is IS good in IPv6 world
> too. I can’t understand, why I should think about such private matters
> (and  indirectly fund this) and count it as arguments in the RIPE’s
> policy development? If the allocation will never be announced to the
> public network called the Internet, then it’s not the scope of our thinking!

IPv4:
 * RFC1918
   + just grab
   - everybody in the world uses it, lots of clashes
   - not suitable for interconnecting ever to other networks
   - generally implies a lot of NAT at one point in time

 * RIR-space
   + guaranteed globally unique
   - you will have to do paperwork and pay for it

IPv6:
 * ULA,  RFC4193
   + nobody to talk to, calculate your own
   - never to be used anywhere on the Internet
     - not 100.00000% sure that it is globally unique
   (also see http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/ for a 'registry' which
    would make it at least "unique" when everybody uses that)
   - could imply NAT, though that should not be used with IPv6

 * RIR-space
   + guaranteed globally unique
   + can be routed on the internet
   - you will have to do paperwork and pay for it

You can pick what you want, but heed the warnings.

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- 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/20090529/36b42f1f/attachment.sig>