On 4/7/12 13:43 , Randy Bush wrote: >> Changing the message from "you don't need NAT anywhere" to "sure, you >> can use RFC 4193 ULAs, just don't let us see them on the Internet" >> would be a big help. > > in ipv4, rfc1918 space was needed because of address scarcity. in ipv6, > you could use global space inside a nat, if you need a nat. we do not > need to perpetuate the 1918 mess. you can also do it statelessly e.g. 1:1 because address expansion is probably also not your goal. That is unless your providers are morons and you're stuck with a /128 /64 /60 or some other block that's rather too small for the intended purpose. in both the v4 and v6 cases expansion through address translation is unilateral, it doesn't require coordination between the parties, even if you have enough addresses, coordination is (still) expensive. > randy >