[ipv6-wg] RFC 1918 in "production networks" (was IPv6 experiments at future RIPE Meetings)

Gert,

On 2010-02-02 16:21, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 03:53:11PM +0100, Shane Kerr wrote:
>> On 2010-02-02 15:18, James Aldridge wrote:
>>> Rob Blokzijl has asked that we treat the RIPE Meeting network as a
>>> production network. [..]
>>
>> I do think RIPE meetings should switch to RFC 1918 addresses for both
>> IPv4/IPv6 and IPv4-only networks ASAP. 
> 
> "Production network" is not compatible with "RFC 1918" addresses.
> 
> There is no need to make IPv4 available-but-less-useful - if we don't
> want IPv4, let's turn it off, but don't pretend.

I kind of understand where you're coming from. You hate NAT. It is a
common position of anyone who has had to work with it. :)

But the idea that no production networks can use RFC 1918 is a bit
disturbing, because in 2 years or so there won't be any IPv4 addresses
left, and people will be forced to use RFC 1918 addresses. Does that
mean there won't be any IPv4 production networks in 2013?

My intention is not to make IPv4 available-but-less-useful, but rather
to begin using the same setup that all event organizers will have to use
in the future. It's not that bad, really - I use RFC 1918 networks all
the time. I'm using one now (well, except for the 0.01% of the Internet
with working IPv6). The Internet seems to work pretty good with RFC 1918
+ IPv6.

--
Shane