[address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Re: IPv6 PI resource question!

Hi,

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 01:01:15PM +0100, Shane Kerr wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by "hybrid". Can you explain or give a
> reference to what you mean?

Networks connected to both Internet and in Extranet fashion privately
with other networks.

> If you mean a site that needs both internal-only and externally-visible
> addresses, then with IPv6 I think the simple answer is to use ULA for
> the internal addresses, and PA space for the external addresses.

So also need to run split DNS for services accessible via Internet and
via private Extranets. That's signficant operational burden and fails
for anything which needs literal stable addresses to connect to (like
e.g. sensors).

> All IPv6 devices can handle multiple addresses.

Just like every IPv6 stack implements IPSEC, right?

We're allowing PIv6 for "multihomed" (whatever that means really) sites.
Those could "just simply" use PA space from any ISP they connect to. Why
do we make Internet multihoming special compared to Internet-plus-others?
With the "multiple IPs per device" argument there cannot be PIv6. I
thought we've left that behind by now.

> > >       * 6to4 addresses, using one or more of your IPv4 addresses
> > 
> > "What IPv4 addresses?" :-)
> 
> Funny, but you only need a /32 for most purposes here, since each
> IPv4 /32 becomes a /48 under 2002::/16. It's not for everyone, but if
> you have even a single IPv4 address you can use this for your internal
> network numbering. Unless you need more than a /48, in which case are
> you sure you don't want to multihome? :-P

6to4 is special address space and considered "lucky if it works". You
certainly didn't want to really propose using a 2002::/16 6to4 scheme
derrived /48 as "stable addressing" for internal use?!? Did you consider
that folks WILL use 6to4 anycast to reach such addresses? Cannot be
meant serious?!

Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0