Daniel Senie wrote: <SNIP>
> No. It does not imply NAT. It implies traffic to hosts which > are used for purposes which do not communicate to the public > network. > > Could we PLEASE leave NAT out of the equation? Not all hosts > in the world want or need to be connected outside of the > corporate network they belong to. Today such hosts are > numbered in RFC 1918 space WITHOUT NAT and are connected > to corporate networks. It's likely, given the line > of argument you're proposing, that many corporations will > just laugh at the IETF, and continue to use IPv4 for their > private network space. What you are implying here is that using some $random unroutable address space makes these private hosts secure. Why don't you just use firewalls and configure your routers at the correct places? BTW if a network does IPv6 it will most likely also be doing RA's, how are you going to configure those 10000 printers to not be using this RA? Taking into account that DHCPv6 is not completely crystal clear yet. If DHCPv6 where there you would be configuring all your hosts that need to use those printers with "site local" and "global" IP addresses. How and foremost *why* should an application differentiate between those addresses? I think at least I won't like the answer... Greets, Jeroen
