RE: ISP support models Re: IPv6 NAT?

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

 



> I'm not buying that this is so important that it's worth 
> having a box rewrite EVERY address in EVERY packet for.
> 
> If you really want this, you can simply create a loopback 
> interface with address fc00::1 on it and users can type 
> "http://[fc00::1]/"; (ok, so the brackets are annoying, but no 
> NAT helps against that) and the users can connect to that 
> address regardless of what the addresses used on the LAN are.
> 
> If the box runs a DNS resolver and mechanisms to inform hosts 
> about the resolver address, you can avoid the whole address 
> typing thing.
> 
> And of course the use of a proper service discovery mechanism 
> is highly recommended.

If nobody writes all of this up into a set of guidelines
for implementors of SOHO IPv6 gateways, including some more
details on a proper service discovery mechanism, then it isn't
going to happen. Implementors will just go with the tried and 
true technique of rewriting EVERY address in EVERY packet because
that is what the experts suggest.

If you want to let them know that the real experts suggest something
different, then at minimum, an RFC should be published. However I'm
beginning to believe that we need more than just a few good RFCs 
with guidelines for IPv6 gateways and middleboxes. We probably also
need some books, magazine articles, conference presentations etc.
to back it up. And the presentations need to be at conferences like
this one <http://www.date-conference.com/> not at the IETF meetings.

And this one <http://www.realtimelinuxfoundation.org/>
and this <http://www.embedded.com/>

--Michael Dillon
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

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