Resend: RFC 7157 on IPv6 Multihoming without Network Address Translation

Below is the original publication announcement for RFC 7157.  It is
being resent because the original announcement does not seem to 
have made it through to the ietf-announce list.  Please note that the
date of publication is 31 March 2014, as indicated in the message
below.   

----- Forwarded message from rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org -----

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 17:36:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref@iana.org, v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: RFC 7157 on IPv6 Multihoming without Network Address Translation

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        RFC 7157

        Title:      IPv6 Multihoming without Network Address 
                    Translation 
        Author:     O. Troan, Ed., D. Miles, S. Matsushima,
                    T. Okimoto, D. Wing
        Status:     Informational
        Stream:     IETF
        Date:       March 2014
        Mailbox:    ot@cisco.com, 
                    davidmiles@google.com, 
                    satoru.matsushima@g.softbank.co.jp, 
                    t.okimoto@west.ntt.co.jp, 
                    dwing@cisco.com
        Pages:      22
        Characters: 49038
        Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat-06.txt

        URL:        http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7157.txt

Network Address and Port Translation (NAPT) works well for conserving
global addresses and addressing multihoming requirements because an
IPv4 NAPT router implements three functions: source address
selection, next-hop resolution, and (optionally) DNS resolution.  For
IPv6 hosts, one approach could be the use of IPv6-to-IPv6 Network
Prefix Translation (NPTv6).  However, NAT and NPTv6 should be
avoided, if at all possible, to permit transparent end-to-end
connectivity.  In this document, we analyze the use cases of
multihoming.  We also describe functional requirements and possible
solutions for multihoming without the use of NAT in IPv6 for hosts
and small IPv6 networks that would otherwise be unable to meet
minimum IPv6-allocation criteria.  We conclude that DHCPv6-based
solutions are suitable to solve the multihoming issues described in
this document, but NPTv6 may be required as an intermediate solution.

This document is a product of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of the IETF.

INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community.
It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
  http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
  http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist

For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/search
For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org.  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.

The RFC Editor Team
Association Management Solutions, LLC

----- End forwarded message -----