On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, Keith Moore wrote: > > fine... we can move the functionality to the NAT... close to the edge > > but not all the way to the hosts. > > happy now? > > only if you turn the NAT into something that doesn't do address translation > for v6. > > actually I think we'll end up with something like this in the best scenarios - > border router will do NAT for IPv4, routing w/o translation for v6, security > for both. whether that router tries to finesse multihoming for v6 is an open > question. Keith, Quick note from the peanut gallery: I believe your vision is only achievable if the address allocation policies for v6 are such that every man/woman/child and enterprise can obtain an "ample" amount of provider-independent v6 space (or some number of address bits that the enterprise can *own*). If people feel like they are held hostage to others for the operation of their internal enterprise (or home!) networks, you can take it to the bank that v6 NAT will become just as pervasive and entrenched as v4 NAT is. -teg _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf