Re: [v6ops] PI [ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks]

[Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>]

On 24/06/2014 11:19, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Yet there is equipment on sale as I write that doesn't support them.

Mark, you quoted a single Brother HL-4040CN which ok, I'm sure it doesn't
have a gui option to support multiple ipv4 addresses, but I'd also suspect
that it uses a linux kernel underneath the glitz and that this is purely a
UI issue.

Either way, Mark Smith's original point:

> 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.

... is demonstrably incorrect on a matter of fact, and can we just accept
that supporting multiple IPv4 addresses on the same interface is normal,
mainstream and widely supported, including on consumer grade hardware?  And
then can we move on?  thanks,

Nick