Re: [v6ops] (re)numbering [ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks]

[Matthew Petach <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Mark ZZZ Smith <[e-mail]>
wrote:
[...]

> RFC1918s have provided that internal connectivity robustness to both home
> networks and enterprise networks. Of course the drawback is that in IPv4 it
> is binary - hosts either have RFC1918s or public addresses, so if you have
> RFC1918s you have to use NAT to access external destinations on the
> Internet.
>

Wow...that's news to me.

For a decade now, I've been using
RFC1918 addresses+global addresses
in IPv4 on my home network; each
host has an address from each subnet,
and uses the 1918 addresses to reach
internal-only devices (printers, terminal
servers, etc.) which only have RFC1918
addresses, and use the globally routed
IPs for reaching non-local destinations.

I'm not sure I'd agree with your characterization
that IPv4 is different from IPv6 in that regards;
there's nothing in the IPv4 world that prevents
hosts from having multiple addresses, and
making use of them.

It's definitely a plus to have internal connectivity
stay working regardless of external connectivity,
I completely agree with you on that.

Matt