On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, Keith Moore wrote:
fine... we can move the functionality to the NAT... close to the edge
but not all the way to the hosts.
happy now?
only if you turn the NAT into something that doesn't do address translation
for v6.
actually I think we'll end up with something like this in the best scenarios -
border router will do NAT for IPv4, routing w/o translation for v6, security
for both. whether that router tries to finesse multihoming for v6 is an open
question.
Keith,
Quick note from the peanut gallery: I believe your vision is only
achievable if the address allocation policies for v6 are such that
every man/woman/child and enterprise can obtain an "ample" amount of
provider-independent v6 space (or some number of address bits that the
enterprise can *own*). If people feel like they are held hostage to
others for the operation of their internal enterprise (or home!)
networks, you can take it to the bank that v6 NAT will become just as
pervasive and entrenched as v4 NAT is.
-teg
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf