RE: Comments on the NAT66 draft

["Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <[e-mail]>]

<>start snip<>
> As for the specifics: having 1:1 NAT without port rewriting, maybe 
> even just swapping the first /64 bits, is what should serve the 
> purpose of "I want to be able to change providers, on a whim, without 
> renumbering my internal network", while at the same time having fairly
little impact
> on applications.   
> 

This is why they have DHCPv6, one small change on the DHCP server and
the whole network should renumbered. 

<>end snip<> 

For end-systems statefull addressing could aid, however what about BGP
sessions, addressing of network elements, access-lists, firewalls,
etc... These will require manual handling and if realizing some networks
count +10k network devices the operational overhead involved is not to
be deminished.

Also, each enterprise customer I speak to of reasonable size does not
want to be tied with the address space of the service provider. The cost
of moving in addition to the downtime due to network transition is on
top of their minds when they are speaking on v6. 

RFC4864 does provide alternatives for NAT in some cases, however there
are gaps. As Brian mentioned in an earlier response, these GAPS could be
solved in different ways, and while NAT66 may be one of them, there
could be other solutions out there not being investigated. My prefered
way of moving fwd is to first understand the actual problem that needs
to be solved (problem space), then understand the solution space. Now,
it seems the other way around, which makes little sense.

G/