IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft

EricLKlein@softhome.net Mon, 10 November 2008 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 184B43A69AB for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:23:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.886
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.886 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.449, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nAOtM64TTH-J for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:23:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 453DA3A6A47 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:23:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KzYbK-000Abv-EA for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:22:50 +0000
Received: from [66.54.152.27] (helo=jive.SoftHome.net) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <EricLKlein@softhome.net>) id 1KzYbF-000AbH-Uw for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:22:47 +0000
Received: (qmail 12957 invoked by uid 417); 10 Nov 2008 15:22:26 -0000
Received: from mambo- (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.2.15) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 10 Nov 2008 15:22:26 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 417) by softhome.net with local; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:22:26 -0700
References: <4911B9E7.8090108@free.fr> <BB56240F3A190F469C52A57138047A03014762B5@xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com> <courier.4912CE09.00003CB8@softhome.net> <BB56240F3A190F469C52A57138047A03014765AF@xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com> <6BB0BB30-7AA4-4821-B9EB-4703794F3C87@muada.com> <courier.4914868B.00003F53@softhome.net> <20081108093045.GV89033@Space.Net> <courier.4915760A.00007FB9@softhome.net> <20081108134500.GX89033@Space.Net> <courier.491685EE.00003026@softhome.net> <BF673482-DA92-4D3E-A1A3-E27053073D8C@lilacglade.org>
In-Reply-To: <BF673482-DA92-4D3E-A1A3-E27053073D8C@lilacglade.org>
From: EricLKlein@softhome.net
To: Margaret Wasserman <mrw@lilacglade.org>
Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, Behave WG <behave@ietf.org>, "Wes Beebee \\\"\\(wbeebee\\)" <wbeebee@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:22:26 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sender: EricLKlein@softhome.net
X-Originating-IP: [62.219.175.130]
Message-ID: <courier.491851B2.00006DF5@softhome.net>
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

Margaret Wasserman writes: 

> 
> In what way would site locals resolve the renumbering problem?  How  are 
> they better than IPv4 RFC 1918  addresses for this purpose?  What  
> difference do you see between IPv6 site local addresses and IPv6 ULAs  
> that would make a difference here? 
> 
Perception of what they are for and how they work is different. Otherwise 
they are just as bad as NAT - this is why they were created and then 
depreciated. 

We need a better understanding of the real needs (not just those of "I have 
v4 NAT and want v6 NAT") and then see what the solution is to the actual 
need. Otherwise we are taking a solution and looking for a problem.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email