RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?

["Dunn, Jeffrey H." <[e-mail]>]

Antonio,

So are you suggesting that we replace IPv4 NAT with IPv6 routing proxy?

Best Regards, 
  
Jeffrey Dunn 
Info Systems Eng., Lead 
MITRE Corporation.
[phone] (mobile)

-----Original Message-----
From: Antonio Querubin [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 3:08 PM
To: Alexandru Petrescu
Cc: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; IETF IPv6 Mailing List; Ron Bonica;
[e-mail]; Pasi Eronen; Sherman, Kurt T.;
[e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; V6ops Chairs;
Martin, Cynthia E.
Subject: Re: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

> In a typical WiFi Access Point landscape...
>
> Sellers of these devices don't have a solution to program the WiFi AP
> IPv6 in the same way they'd do it for IPv4.  For IPv4, the AP
receives
> an IPv4 address on the wired Ethernet and then does NAT and subnet
> further on the wireless interface.  For IPv6, although it receives a
> huge /64 IPv6 prefix on the wire it can't offer Stateless Autoconfig
on
> the  wireless interface.  This begs again for IPv6 NAT.

I'd say it begs for assigning the user a /56 or /48 routed to them on
the 
/64 link.

-- 
Antonio Querubin
whois:  AQ7-ARIN
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------