On Nov 26, 2008, at 12:17 PM, ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > In any case, I think getting renumbering right and getting it > deployed is an > essential step in minimizing the use of NAT66.
This seems to ignore the fact that we already have a widely deployed solution to site renumbering: NAT.
Well, given that I said I'm using it for V4 and will probably use it for V6, I'm not sure "ignoring" is quite the right term.
IPv4 NA(P)T (of the stateful, n:1, portmapping variety, anyway) includes a lot of stuff that isn't strictly required to solve the renumbering problem, though. The renumbering problem can be solved with a stateless, 1:1 NAT that doesn't change the transport ports. In that case, do you really think that NAT is an unacceptable solution, and that we need to develop another renumbering solution in order to minimize use of the one that we already have?
Again, it seems clear that since I'm using it I don't regard it as unacceptable... The real question is how it will compare to whatever IPv6 automatic renumbering support ends up in SOHO routers. (Please note that I am entirely indifferent to the potential capabilities of IPv6 - what matters is what I can buy, not what the specifications say is possible.) At this point in time I an quite skeptical it will ever work as well as 1:1 NAT does. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf