Le 15 oct. 2010 à 10:29, Masataka Ohta a écrit :
Remi Respres wrote:
Problems can occur with some CPEs that don't comply with RFC 5382,
RFC5382 is, by no means, a deployed standard.
Not even a standard-track document (but nevertheless useful to comply with).
Beside, assuming that ISPS assign 10/8 IPv4 addresses, the only customers to be
concerned seem to be those:
- whose NAT doesn't comply with RFC 5382
- assign 10/8 addresses internally (not typical for default behaviors of
unmanaged CPEs)
In my understanding, although NAT444 + 6rd is far from being the
only model to offer IPv6 service while dealing with the IPv4
address shortage, IT IS a deployable approach.
For some ISPs, it has a very good performance/cost ratio.
That's an argument similar to ones heard for these 15 years.
Which, of course, isn't sufficient for it to be wrong.
RD
Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf