[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Re: [lir-wg] IXP networks routing

>> Problem is that site-locals and/or RFC1918 won't make your data more
>> secure or more confidential. Driving this fact through will be as much
>> of a challenge as converting from X.25.
>
> Sorry - my response wasn't clear as I think my point was made 
> elsewhere in
> the thread - I am not interested in this aspect, but this is the 
> aspect that
> drives/motivates some ludite network admins in old, slow 
> organisations. They
> actually believe X.25 networks to be more secure than the 'public' 
> Internet.

Don't tell anyone, but I have worked serving IBM systems and 
installations. I know more about X.25 than I want to. Been there, done 
that, got the ulster.

>> The same people arguing for private addresses are also slowly
>> realizing that they are missing a number of applications that others
>> are using to lower costs and gain in technical advancement. Some of
>
> My point, to start again, is that organisations need to be able to 
> rely on
> an addressing scheme that is completely independent of 'ISP of the 
> month'
> that they may be using so that they can avoid try to use horrid 
> NAT/RFC1918
> hacks to talk over private (IPsec or physical) connections. It is all 
> very
> cute to talk about automatic renumbering etc. but not in this context 
> - you
> CANNOT do it, either technically or politically.
>

This is another issue though. portable addressspace, or PI, or what we 
want to call it is something that IPV6 is missing. And that is a 
problem. Just like multihoming. I agree that automatic renumbering 
won't get us anywhere, we need to solve the real problem.  And 
Site-locals will not help.

- kurtis -