Re: [nat66] Residential use case

[Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Fred,

On Oct 25, 2010, at 1:12 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
>> Then we are in complete agreement.  NAT66 isn't needed for most  
>> home users -- a stateful firewall would serve the same purpose.
>
> You may be interested to review
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-troan-multihoming-without-nat66
>  "IPv6 Multihoming without Network Address Translation", Ole Troan,  
> David
>  Miles, Satoru Matsushima, Tadahisa Okimoto, Dan Wing, 26-Jul-10
>
> The question of multihoming with or without NAT66 (specifically  
> referring to this draft) was brought up by a large residential  
> access provider, who given current solutions sees NAT66 as the only  
> solution to its *residential* problems. Basically, the point of the  
> draft is to describe their scenario and state that they need  
> solutions to three residential problems or they will consider  
> themselves as having no alternative to NAT66.

Wow, I do have to read that.  From the name, I thought the document  
said exactly the opposite, although I should have trusted that author  
list to come up with something insightful.  Thanks for the pointer!

Margaret