Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

[Peter Hessler <[e-mail]>]

On 2017 Jun 04 (Sun) at 22:11:59 +0900 (+0900), Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
:On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Peter Hessler <[e-mail]> wrote:
:
:> :There is no workable solution if you want to assign 64 bits to the bus, 64
:> :bits to the routing system, and M bits for mobility, unless M = 0.
:>
:> That's *exactly* why bus and routing MUST NOT require a specific size.
:>
:
:If you don't require a specific size "operational consistency with IPv4"
:will inevitably lead to one /128 per device and NAT. As a host developer I
:don't want to implement NAT, because it's bad for my users.

One address per device *is a good thing*.  From the OS perspective,
having to select which ******** address to use as the source IP is
horrible.

NAT means two things:

1) You can't depend on directly accessing the device.  This is true with
Firewalls, so you have to consider that anyways.

2) You can't embed the IP address inside the packet data.  That's a
stupid idea, and shouldn't be done.

Besides, *Lots of people are already deplyoing IPv6 NAT in the wild*.


-- 
You will feel hungry again in another hour.