Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT

-----Original Message-----
From: Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
Date: Tuesday, 18 March 2014 2:05 pm
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, "Manfredi, Albert E"
<albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it

>>
>>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
                                        ^^^^^ I meant solutions of course.
Looks like my auto-correct was developed by a yoga instructor :)
> 
>deploy. 
>
>Hesham
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>ipv6@ietf.org
>>Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------