Re: [v6ops] Follow-up Discussion - draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices

Brian:

What solution would you recommend today to a small-to-medium-sized enterprise that cannot get PI space and wants the flexibility to easily change providers and possibly multi-home?

If the enterprise numbers their network internally with PA space, then they need to renumber to change providers. Though this is definitely easier in IPv6 than IPv4, it is still not "easy".  And what about multi-homing?

- Philip

On 2015-10-19, at 16:03 , Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>> If ULAs are the only non-Link-Local address available the	
>> hosts, the enterprise will need to use translation technologies such	
>> as NPT[RFC6296] or NAT66 to reach the Internet. 
> 
> I think this is still the wrong message. Here's my suggestion:
> 
> The best approach is to use ULAs for internal communications and
> normal IPv6 addresses for external communications. Running multiple
> addresses in this way is a standard feature of IPv6. If for some reason
> an enterprise decides to use ULAs as the only non-Link-Local address
> available to its hosts, the enterprise will also need to use the
> experimental address prefix technology translation known as NPTv6
> [RFC6296] to reach the Internet. Full address translation (known
> as NAT66) is never needed for IPv6 since there is no address shortage.
> 
> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 

Re: [v6ops] Follow-up Discussion - draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices - NAT