[v4v6interim] NAT66 for PI [Re: [46translation] [BEHAVE] Proposal for new BEHAVEcharter]

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 2008-10-21 00:26, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
...
>>> 4/ prefix delegation "bypass"
>>>
>>> (1) is a non-issue for IPv6. (2) is solved with stateful firewalling and
>>> does not require NAT. 1:1 NAT fails to solve (3) as it does hide the
>>> subnetting scheme, but fails to hide individual hosts. This leaves only
>>> (4). Did I miss anything?
>> I think one main reason would be provider independence (ie. no need to
>> renumber)  for small sites that cannot afford to have thier own PI
>> address block allocated
> 
> That's prefix delegation/routing bypass.

Yes. It avoids renumbering, and allows multihoming. It's very hard
to stop this unless the RRG comes up with a miracle solution
in the near future. If the site uses a ULA prefix, it can even
avoid the address ambiguity problems of RFC1918, without ever
need to apply for PI space.

On 2008-10-21 04:16, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> I understand that you might not be interested in working on a NAT66 document, instead choosing to focus on developing better solutions to the problems described in RFC 4864.  But, don't you think there is some good that we could do with a NAT66 document in the meantime?

Margaret, I fear that even an RFC saying "Don't ever do this,
but if you do, here's how" will be widely viewed as encouragement.
But the RRG miracle seems to be slow in coming. So I'll try to
bite my tongue ;-)

   Brian


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