[v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices-08

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 21 July 2015 11:41 UTC

Message-ID: <55AE2FD6.4060405@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 23:41:10 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Ztb64516Yqo7ncloeQqedU6Wwbs>
Subject: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices-08
Precedence: list

In section 2.1.1.  Choice of Addresses in the Core

> For an enterprise, the use of private address space is
> reasonable, but the enterprise will need to use NAT44 and/or
> NPT[RFC6296] on links to the Internet.  If the network has no
> connection to the Internet, then obviously this is not a problem.

Try

For an enterprise, the use of private address space is reasonable.
In the case of IPv4 [RFC1918] the enterprise will need to use NAT44.
In the case of IPv6 ULA addresses [RFC4193], the preferred solution
is to use private addresses only for internal traffic. Hosts
requiring external connections should be given normal PA or PI
addresses as well as ULA addresses. If the network has no connection
to the Internet, then obviously this is not needed. The
experimental mechanism Network Prefix Translation [RFC6296] is
not recommended.

Regards
   Brian

[v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices-08 Brian E Carpenter
Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices-08 Erik Kline