Re: IPv6 NAT?

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

 



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...).""

RD


_______________________________________________

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]