On 28/01/2008, at 11:43 PM, Philip Smith wrote:
Has anyone got IPv6 traffic that and IPv6 to IPv4 translator can't handle? Extending RFC1918 address space doesn't solve the IPv6 transition problem. This proposal needs to sort out what problem it is trying to solve. In this state, it does little more than waste conference time.
I completely agree.Expanding RFC1918 space simply serves to further increase reliance on our depleting stocks of IPv4 space.
If LIRs require more RFC1918 space so as to avoid overlapping address space they should be using globally unique IPv4 address space.
If global uniqueness is such a desirable trait to have then I hope those LIRs are doing their best to help sort out this IPv6 mess so that we retain that global uniqueness in the future.
Additional reuse of IPv4 address space by increasing RFC1918 space serves only to delay the point at which decision makers realise the situation is critical - resulting in a far smaller timeframe in which to transition to IPv6.
Cheers, Jonny.