Adrian Chadd wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007, Sam Stickland wrote: > >> Personally I hate NAT. But I currently work in a large enterprise >> environment and NAT is suprisingly popular. I came from a service >> provider background and some of the attitudes I've discovered towards >> private addresses in enterprise environments are quite surprising. Aside >> for the usual proponents of using NAT to hide your internal address >> infrastructure (which security always seem to insist upon) quite a >> popular design rule of from seems to be "Only carry public addresses on >> the public Internet and only carry private addresses on your private >> network" :-| >> >> If an Enterprise doesn't have a great deal for IP addresses that need to >> be routed on the public internet, and they thing that NAT is a _good_ >> design choice, it seems to me that they don't have a great deal of >> pressure to move to IPv6. > > In fact, and call me crazy, but I can't help but wonder how many enterprises > out there will see IPv6 and its concept of "real IPs for all machines, > internal and external!" and respond with "Hell No." > > Anyone got any numbers for that? I'm happy to admit I don't. :)
Hence the discussion of site-local (dead), ula, ula-c etc. However widespread use of private address space in ipv4 costs people huge amounts of money when you have to merge the business processes of two or more large enterprise networks. > > > > Adrian >