Re: [nat66] Residential use case

[Rémi Després <[e-mail]>]

Le 25 oct. 2010 à 19:12, Fred Baker a écrit :

> 
> 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.

My point is that a FW isn't needed and is even harmful in UNMANAGED CPEs, and is even harmful because without CPE management it would prevent any incoming connectivity and simple IPv6 peer-to-peer.


> 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.

I can only repeat that I tried to find a solution without NAT66, and that I believe it does exists.
It is described in tools.ietf.org/html/draft-despres-softwire-sam-01, in particular sec 3.3.

Claiming that there is no alternative to NAT66 without looking at it and commenting is IMHO unfortunate.
One reason for it to be unfortunate is that restoring e2e address preservation is what can make SHIM6 and SCTP to work.

Regards,
RD