"I'd just allocate a separate subnet or group of subnets for external access ..." FWIW - MIPv6 could be used in exactly that fashion. But this doesn't solve the proposed problem ... /TJ Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Christian Huitema <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:41:37 To: Steven M. Bellovin<smb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum<iljitsch@xxxxxxxxx>; Fred Baker<fred@xxxxxxxxx>; IETF Discussion<ietf@xxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers > I'm not sure I believe in the need for topology hiding. But if I did, > on v6 I'd just allocate a separate subnet or group of subnets for > external access. If really necessary, have such hosts set up IP over > IP or L2TP tunnels to a concentrator; that will make this external > access net look flat. That idea has been advanced quite a few times, but there is not a whole lot of code written or products deployed. There are a few interesting issues, e.g. the cost of tunneling versus in terms of overhead or management, or the deployment of adequate source address selection policies. Actually, rather than tunneling, have we seriously consider flat host based routing in a corporate network? A combination of DHT and caching technologies ought to make that quite scalable. > > Of course, Iljitsch points an interesting issue. If NAT66 behaves > > exactly like, say, NAT 64, then why would the organization bother to > > use IPv6 rather than sticking with net 10? > > Services like Microsoft DirectAccess? Direct Access certainly does not require that enterprises deploy NAT66... -- Christian Huitema _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf