ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers

2008-11-27 02:20:08
Mark Andrews wrote:


      And if you stop thinking IPv6 == IPv4 + big addresses and
      start thinking multiple IPv6 addresses including a ULA IPv6
      address + RFC 3484 you get local address stability without
      needing a NAT.  You use ULAs for internal communication and
      global addresses for external communication.

      This isn't future stuff, you can do this today.  You can
      renumber your external addresses daily and keep internal
      sessions up for weeks.

it might work for two party applications on hosts that are configured to
prefer ULAs to global addresses when the destination address is also a
ULA.   problem is, sometimes that's exactly the wrong choice.  the API
and stack don't know whether the application has a greater need for a
global address (e.g. for referrals) or a local address (for stability).

and just because a ULA exists for both source and destination does not
inherently mean those addresses are more stable than other addresses
that are available, nor does it mean that traffic is routed between
source ULA and destination ULA.

Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>