[nat66] Residential use case

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 25, 2010, at 10:05 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> On Oct 25, 2010, at 12:09 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
>> It seems you accept that it may do some "harm" in the residential case (which is the case I discuss: unmanaged CPEs).
> 
> 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.