Brian,
On Feb 17, 2008, at 10:33 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-02-18 14:30, Terry Gray wrote:
Unless/until enterprise (or even home) network operators have some
number of bits of address to call their own, without risk of forced
change or being held hostage to their ISP, you will have NAT for v6
just like for v4. I think you can take that to the bank.
No, you'll have pressure for PI space, which we already see.
As for how to make PI-addressed sites globally reachable without
a scaling problem for the WAN routing system, see the RRG list,
which is really aimed at that challenge IMHO. There's certainly
no need to rush into NAT for that reason. We don't have an
*imminent* scaling problem in IPv6 WAN routing.
So if I understand you correctly, you believe that:
1. ULAs will give enterprises the addressing autonomy that they seek
(as RFC 1918 addresses do with IPv4); but that
2. Enterprises will NOT need to use NAT to make those ULAs globally
reachable (instead using work going on in RRG).
Is that correct?
I will admit that I haven't followed the RRG list at all, but I find
it hard to wrap my brain around how precisely this would be done
(outside of servers full of proxies, ALGs, etc.). Perhaps I've just
spent far too long in enterprise-land where everything is NAT'd and
proxied at the firewall with IPv4. Can you point folks like me to
some specific work on this that we can read up on?
Yes, which is why I'm a strong supporter of ULAs. There's no reason
your printers or internal-only servers need globally reachable
addresses.
Agreed.
Regards,
Dan
--
Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation dyork(_at_)voxeo(_dot_)com
Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com
Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com
Bring your web applications to the phone.
Find out how at http://evolution.voxeo.com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf