> -----Original Message----- > From: Rémi Després [mailto:remi.despres@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 5:46 AM > To: Dan Wing > Cc: 'Paul Francis'; 'Dan York'; 'Rémi Després'; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: IPv6 NAT? > > Dan Wing wrote : > > Such 1-for-1 address rewriting does not provide the topology > > hiding that many people seem to like of their existing NAPT > > devices, nor does such 1-for-1 address rewriting obscure the > > number of hosts behind the NAT. Such obscuring can be useful > > for certain businesses (there are, today, small ISPs in certain > > countries that do not want their country's PTT to know the > > ISP's actual market share, for fear tarrifs or advertising to > > compete with the small ISP will be increased). > > > Note that the approach in proposed in an earlier e-mail (and quoted > below) provides the "topology and number of hosts obscuring" > you discuss. > It does it without any NAT in the middle. > > ""If a client host takes a new randomly chosen > "privacy IID" for each of its outgoing connections: (1) its > address and > its chosen port will keep their E2E significance; (2) no one will know > where it is in its site; (3) any attempt to call such an address will > fail; (4) the host will easily clean up its state when it knows a > connection is finished, or when it resets, or when its power is turned > off; (5) no stateful logic is needed in any intermediate box; (6) > intermediate boxes are not concerned with protocols used (UDP, TCP, > SCTP...)."" Sounds like RFC4941. I do not believe today's application developers are comfortable with determining if and when their application needs to perform the functions of RFC4941. -d _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf