On Nov 26, 2008, at 12:17 PM, ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
> In any case, I think getting renumbering right and getting it
> deployed is an
> essential step in minimizing the use of NAT66.
This seems to ignore the fact that we already have a widely deployed
solution to site renumbering: NAT.
Well, given that I said I'm using it for V4 and will probably use it for V6,
I'm not sure "ignoring" is quite the right term.
IPv4 NA(P)T (of the stateful, n:1, portmapping variety, anyway)
includes a lot of stuff that isn't strictly required to solve the
renumbering problem, though. The renumbering problem can be solved
with a stateless, 1:1 NAT that doesn't change the transport ports. In
that case, do you really think that NAT is an unacceptable solution,
and that we need to develop another renumbering solution in order to
minimize use of the one that we already have?
Again, it seems clear that since I'm using it I don't regard it as
unacceptable... The real question is how it will compare to whatever IPv6
automatic renumbering support ends up in SOHO routers. (Please note that I am
entirely indifferent to the potential capabilities of IPv6 - what matters is
what I can buy, not what the specifications say is possible.) At this point in
time I an quite skeptical it will ever work as well as 1:1 NAT does.
Ietf mailing list