Re: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

--On onsdag, mars 26, 2003 17:40:23 -0800 David Conrad 
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Ted,
>
> On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 05:03  PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>> 	If you were using some of an allocated portion as routable addresses
>> and some as unrouted addresses, you might be forced to change the
>> unrouted addresses as a consequences of choosing someone new to carry
>> the traffic from the routed portions of your network.  That would carry
>> the same pain of renumbering it always does.
>
> Which, of course, implies NAT ("where's there's pain, there's NAT"? :-)).
>

the more general aphorism is probably

  where there's pain
  people want painkillers
  painkillers don't cure the cause of pain
  painkillers have side effects

not that this helps evaluate the issue (much); my personal take (which is 
largely irrelevant to this list) is that IPv6 applications will be cheaper 
and simpler when the code does not have to treat some addresses differently 
from others; the fewer special cases, the better.

Special cases are pain; in this case, we were able to eliminate one source 
of this pain.

In my opinion, of course.

                   Harald