Re: IPv6 NAT?

[Rémi Després <remi.despres@xxxxxxx>]

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote :

   The proposal is, more precisely, a new fresh v6 address for each
   OUTGOING connection.
    

...
  

   Then, there is no need to concern the DNS with these new
   addresses:
    

Mark Andrews' concern was, I believe, for the many services which
refuse you or, worse, delay you deliberately, when there is no PTR DNS
record for the source IP address (see
draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations).
  

Thanks for the comment.

Note that the "fresh part" of addresses we discuss here concerns only "in-site" information (the IID in the lowest 64 bits).
The first 64 bits of IPv6 addresses are still available to identify sites from which connections are initiated.
PTR RRs are normally used to get names corresponding to prefixes, not to addresses, so that there is IMU no reverse DNS problem here.

Not also that v6 to v6 NATs, that this proposal aims at making unnecessary, tend to be bad in various contexts for remote address checking applications.

RD

_______________________________________________

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