Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it

[Hesham Soliman <[e-mail]>]

>
>mobile hotspots, and any of a host of new applications, such as
>in-vehicle communications and IoT in general.
>
>
>
>
>
>Is there a reason why this stuff can't be bridged at L2?

=> I haven¹t seen a general case for mobile hot spots that need multiple
IP subnets, so I don¹t see a massive case there for shorter prefixes. But
you can imagine a case easily enough for in-vehicle communications where
it makes sense to have complete network separation between the vehicle¹s
internals and the passengers traffic. Sure you can still bridge everything
but IP sub-netting gives you in-built separation for IP layer traffic like
ND ..etc relatively easily. So it would be good to support that.

I just don¹t understand why all of this can¹t be done today for mobile
routers with PD! People keep talking about it not being deployed but all
that means is that there hasn¹t been enough demand for it yet. I don¹t see
the IETF¹s role as an organisation as one that dedicates itself to
developing temporary workarounds. The salutations are there for people to
deploy. 

Hesham


>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>[e-mail]
>Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>--------------------------------------------------------------------