> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Scott Brim > Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 7:11 AM > To: Brian E Carpenter > Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum; IAB; IETF Discussion Mailing List; > Lixia Zhang > Subject: Re: Comment on draft-iab-ipv6-nat-00 > > Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote on 03 21 2009 4:07 PM: > > So instead, you run NAT at every ISP connection. Your > internal users get > > NATted to an ISP prefix at whichever exit point their > traffic happens > > to reach, which automatically causes their return traffic > to come through > > the same ISP. That exit point is locally chosen by the > local routing setup. > > You don't need any worldwide coordination of the BGP4 > advertisements, > > because there aren't any expect the ISP's normal ones. Also, traffic > > flows inside your network are localised, since traffic goes out and > > returns through a (reasonably) local gateway. > > > > When one of these NATs goes down, active connections will be lost, > > but IGP routing will switch users automatically to a different NAT > > when they retry. > > If you allow your hosts to use multiple connection points into the > Internet, and external routing changes so that the packets > they send go > out different connection points, their apparent source address can > change. One of the requirements for effective use of NAT and > multihoming is that your hosts' peers need to handle this (via > Multipath, HIP, MIP, SCTP or whatever). That is, you can't allow your > hosts to use multiple connection points until everyone _else_ > they talk > to has been upgraded. How will you know when that is? A host knows if it is using HIP, MIP, or SCTP to communicate with another host. FYI, there is also a new idea for Mobile DTLS which provides similar address mobility, draft-barrett-mobile-dtls-00.txt. -d _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf