Re: [v4v6interim] [BEHAVE] [46translation] Proposal for new BEHAVE charter

[Rémi Després <[e-mail]>]

Margaret Wasserman   (m/j/a) 10/20/08 4:50 PM:
> I don't _want_ NAT66 to be deployed any more than the rest of you, but 
> I believe it is inevitable. 
Although I also believe that IPv6 NATs will be deployed, there is IMO a 
competitive alternative, say SAM66, to implement purely local routing 
plans  in private sites.

It is an IPv6-IPv6 application of the Static Address Mapping approach 
(SAM) I presented in Montreal:
-  E2E IPv6 packets, where they  traverse private routing networks, are 
locally encapsulated (somewhat like for ISATAP, but IPv6 in IPv6).
-  Border routers of customer sites derive intra-site addresses from 
global addresses by substituting an intra-site header to an ISP site prefix.

Its advantages include:
- No interference with the DNS (global addresses are the only needed ones ).
- No interference with transport checksums.
- Stateless operation of border routers (scalability and resilience)
- Openness to site multi-homing with a unique intra-site routing plan 
(yet to be documented ).

Its main drawback is clearly that hosts have to be upgraded (very simple 
addition, yet a real one).  Also,  participation of DHCPv6 (or router 
advertisements?) is needed  to automate configuration. A possible 
consequence that  SAM66 and NAT66 will have to coexist.


Best regards,

RD

_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim