Leif Johansson wrote: > Of course we filter - What is your requirement to do that? I am serious, because those are the things the current draft is trying to document. If it is not covered by the current text, please send details.
> but we don't NAT! I never said NAT was a good thing, in fact I keep pointing out we will have NAT if we don't give people stable local space to work with. Local stability is more important than breaking a few applications people aren't using yet. > And luck has nothing > to do with > it. Would > I like to be able to renumber and/or switch providers at the press of > the button? Maybe. Some are more insistent about that ability. > Do I wan't to pay the price of not beeing able to run > (say) sip > to the end- > point? No way! Good, we agree on something as a starting point. The limited range document is about identifying the requirements network managers have which prevent flat global routing of every prefix. There is nothing in there about requiring NAT. There is a suggestion that a parallel effort be started to create a globally routed PI space, on the assumption that some will try to pay to have the limited range addresses routed as a proxy for the non-existent IPv6 PI. I personally think the IPv6 PI work belongs in the IPv6 WG, but in the current political climate I can't see it happening. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
