On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Yoav Nir <ynir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:43 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> >>>> Changing the message from "you don't need NAT anywhere" to "sure, you >>>> can use RFC 4193 ULAs, just don't let us see them on the Internet" >>>> would be a big help. >>> >>> in ipv4, rfc1918 space was needed because of address scarcity. in ipv6, >>> you could use global space inside a nat, if you need a nat. we do not >>> need to perpetuate the 1918 mess. >> >> Not having to "buy" address space, or "lease" it from whatever ISP you're using at a certain point in time is a feature, not a workaround. RFC 1918 is only a mess if you need to make sure multiple organizational networks do not overlap. With the amount of subnets available in ULAs this should not be hard. >> > > s/should not be hard/should statistically not be a problem/ > > want to now bet your next billion dollar partnership on 'statistically > should not be a problem' ? (rhetorical question, your lawyers won't > let you anyway, so it doesn't matter what you want) > > -chris Anyhow .... real operators who are really using ULAs have some real use cases... which are not related to not having enough addresses. draft-liu-v6ops-ula-usage-analysis-02 covers some of this.... since this exact conversation keeps appearing over and over. CB