1 Jun
2009
1 Jun
'09
1:15 p.m.
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 02:36:33PM +0400, poty@iiat.ru wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andy Davidson [mailto:andy@nosignal.org] > > Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 10:55 AM > > To: Potapov Vladislav > > Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net > > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and > > IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] > > > > > > On 29 May 2009, at 11:16, <poty@iiat.ru> <poty@iiat.ru> wrote: > > > > > Then Radianz could easily create its own rules without bothering the > > > World, couldn't it? And so - use ANY IP addresses. Why should I see > > > the > > > internal networks (I use corrected "private" meanings) of Radianz or > > > other such companys? If it is NEVER interact with my or the most of > > > other networks in the Internet? > > > > Hi, Vladislav > > > > As others have tried to point out, private networks often still > > connect to the Internet, so in order to prevent connectivity problems > > between -- in this case, Radianz -- and another, unspecified network > > on the Internet, then the addressing that Radianz need to use for > > their private networks must be globally unique. > Here we have several possibilities: > 1. We have a tunnel between the internal networks - then Radianz network > do not need to be GLOBALLY unique, it should be unique only between > interconnected networks. > 2. The same network should have access to the Internet. Then it should > use NAT (not possibly in IPv6) or just be partially connected to the you should update your reading list. I ahve been using IVI (an IPv6 NAT) for a little over 18 months ... works just fine. And you should look into the IETF BEHAVE work... all about IPv6 and NAT. > Internet. The second case - is announcing the block (or part of the > block) to the Internet. The first case - internal network may have RFC > 1918 or other IP addresses. > > > > > Kind regards, > > Andy Davidson > > Vladislav Potapov > Ru.iiat >