On 2007-03-01 18:57, John C Klensin wrote:
...
I continue to believe that, until and unless we come up with
models that can satisfy the underlying problems that NATs
address in the above two cases and implementations of those
models in mass-market hardware, NATs are here to stay, even if
we manage to move to IPv6 for other reasons. And, conversely,
the perceived difficulties with NATs will be sufficiently
overcome by the above issues to prevent those difficulties from
being a major motivator for IPv6, at least for most of the
fraction of the ISP customer base who cannot qualify for PI
space.
This is of course one of the major motivations for
draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-06.txt, which is now in the RFC
Editor's queue. While it doesn't tell SOHO gateway
vendors exactly what to do, it does I think make it clear
that there is a secure mass market IPv6 way forward that
has no need for NAT.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf