ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2008-12-02 07:53:37
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:41:37 -0800
Christian Huitema <huitema(_at_)windows(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com> wrote:

Actually, rather than tunneling, have we seriously consider flat host
based routing in a corporate network? A combination of DHT and
caching technologies ought to make that quite scalable.

I've used large, flat networks, and lived to regret it....

Of course, Iljitsch points an interesting issue. If NAT66 behaves
exactly like, say, NAT 64, then why would the organization bother
to use IPv6 rather than sticking with net 10?

Services like Microsoft DirectAccess?

Direct Access certainly does not require that enterprises deploy
NAT66...

No, but it requires v6 internally.


                --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf