Re: IPv6 NAT?

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

 



Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote :
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 03:42:43PM +0100, Rémi Després
> <remi.despres@xxxxxxx> wrote a message of 49 lines which said:
> 
>> A similar result could be achieved if resolvers, when they have to 
>> get a name for an IPv6 address having a privacy ID, instead of 
>> having no chance to get any name, would replace this ID by an
>> agreed standard value for which there is a PTR RR.
> 
> It seems a good idea.
Thanks.

> RFC 1101 is probably the right basis for such a feature (which does 
> not exist today). So, the roadmap is:
> 
> * write a RFC 1101bis, mostly to introduce IPv6 support * convince
> the resolver's authors to use it (it requires code on their side)
Assuming that a RFC would describe the mechanism (1101bis or another) 
and that such a standard value would be found, I believe resolver 
developpers shouldn't be too reluctant to add this in a next release 
(full upward compatibility).

NB: unless there are objections I don't know, the value could simply be 
0:0:0:0, to mean "unknown IID".

Could we discuss all this in Philadelphia?

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]