Re: Why?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]