On Nov 25, 2008, at 15:11, Sam Hartman wrote:
Keith, would the NAT-66 proposal plus some mechanism for a server
inside the NAT to ask the NAT for its global address be sufficient to
meet the needs described above?
No. RFC 3424 is the IAB Considerations document covering that
problem. I'm tempted to copy and paste highlights from that ancient
scripture here, but I don't think I'd know where to stop. As the
kiddies say, Read The Whole Thing.
The basic problem with NAT66 is that it introduces the possibility of
more than one global IPv6 address realm. Where there is more than
one, there is *any* number, not just the current realm and the single
realm on the other side of the relevant NAT66 box. Fixing your self-
address in whatever address realm any given communications peer
happens to reside is the canonical problem that NAT causes for
applications developers, and NAT66 is no exception to that.
If we're going to go very far down this road toward standardizing on a
NAT66 "solution," then I would humbly suggest that it doesn't make
much sense for there to be a single global DNS horizon where we have
multiple global address realms. Do the proponents of NAT66 have any
proposals for extending DNS appropriately to support the architecture
that NAT66 implies?
Do we really want to open the can of worms that multiple global DNS
horizons represents? I should hope not.
--
james woodyatt <jhw(_at_)apple(_dot_)com>
member of technical staff, communications engineering
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf