Re: [nat66] Residential use case

["Dan Wing" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Margaret Wasserman
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 10:29 AM
> To: Fred Baker
> Cc: Keith Moore; [e-mail] HappyFunBall
> Subject: Re: [nat66] Residential use case
> 
> 
> 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!

No insight, other than:  fix four problems on hosts to eliminate
four reasons for NAT66.  Solutions to those four problems are 
already moving forward in MIF.

-d