Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers

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

 



On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:41:37 -0800
Christian Huitema <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.

I've used large, flat networks, and lived to regret it....
> 
> > > 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...
> 
No, but it requires v6 internally.


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________

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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]