RE: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))

["Jeroen Massar" <[e-mail]>]

Bill Manning [mailto:[e-mail]] wrote:

> % David R. Oran wrote:
> % 
> % > Did anybody consider just handing out a /48 (or a bit smaller) 
> % > automagically with each DNS registration?
> % 
> % I proposed a couple of times a /32 from which /48 can be requested
> % for 'private' (never to be connected to the internet) purposes.
> % I think some others have proposed a similar thing. But the opposers
> % think that it won't be 'free' then... but they will be unique :)
> 
> Been there, Done it, Bought everything.
> SRInic was told to split the assignments into a
"connected/unconnected"
> database back in the day. It was ugly when folks figured that they
> really wanted to be connected and passed muster. renumbering was less
> fun in the late 1980s than today.
> Never want to re-introduce this concept unless/until we can get to the
> point of being able to painlessly renumber the entire Internet every
> 20 minutes.

That eliminates this 'solution'. History is bound to repeat
in these cases. Thus IMHO folks will just need to allocate
some random space or get it out some assigned space.

> Now where are those ""renumbering in IPv6 is easy" cookies.

Some other old stories made those crumble also :)
The renumbering isn't the part that is difficult, though it's
all the configuration items around it that's the burden.

Greets,
 Jeroen