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

On 20 October 2015 at 07:03, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> 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.


If this is mentioned (and I would prefer it wasn't, because IPv4 NAT
has caused me and the Internet enough trouble), then the limitations
that even stateless NPT imposes on applications must be referenced:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6296#section-5

> 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