On Jun 21, 2007, at 15:26, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Maybe I am missing the point, but there seems to be an implication that ULA-C necessarily implies IPv6 NAT; am I misinterpreting? If not, then I don't quite understand why this implication is being drawn. Can someone please explain?
I'm not going so far as to say the implication is there. I'm just have a very difficult time taking seriously the concern about merge risks associated with renumbering due to the birthday paradox in a 2^40 number space without something more substantial to go on than a bald-faced assertion that any small but non-zero probability of collision is unacceptable. The alternative explanation that makes the most sense to me is that some influential organizations, which are too small to warrant their own PI space, are resisting migration to IPv6 unless they can use NAT with private addresses, and they won't [or can't] explain why the arguments in RFC 4864 and draft-ietf- v6ops-scanning-implications-03.txt are failing to persuade them.
-- james woodyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> member of technical staff, communications engineering -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
