Problem is that site-locals and/or RFC1918 won't make your data more secure or more confidential. Driving this fact through will be as much of a challenge as converting from X.25.
Sorry - my response wasn't clear as I think my point was made elsewhere in the thread - I am not interested in this aspect, but this is the aspect that drives/motivates some ludite network admins in old, slow organisations. They actually believe X.25 networks to be more secure than the 'public' Internet.
Don't tell anyone, but I have worked serving IBM systems and installations. I know more about X.25 than I want to. Been there, done that, got the ulster.
The same people arguing for private addresses are also slowly realizing that they are missing a number of applications that others are using to lower costs and gain in technical advancement. Some of
My point, to start again, is that organisations need to be able to rely on an addressing scheme that is completely independent of 'ISP of the month' that they may be using so that they can avoid try to use horrid NAT/RFC1918 hacks to talk over private (IPsec or physical) connections. It is all very cute to talk about automatic renumbering etc. but not in this context - you CANNOT do it, either technically or politically.
This is another issue though. portable addressspace, or PI, or what we want to call it is something that IPV6 is missing. And that is a problem. Just like multihoming. I agree that automatic renumbering won't get us anywhere, we need to solve the real problem. And Site-locals will not help. - kurtis -