Re: [v6ops] ULA discussion #1 ULA+NAT

I'm fine if we don't mention NPT in the draft.

If we are going to mention NPT, then I will strenuously object unless the draft also contains language specifying that any form of address translation is not recommended.

Owen

On Mar 4, 2013, at 6:33 AM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 12:20:52PM +0000, Liubing (Leo) wrote:
>> B: "Not recommended" is way too much, we need fairly stating the pros and cons in the document. Since NPTv6 is a reasonable requirement of the real end-users. Configuring BGP for PI would not feet all the users, especially the small enterprises and home users. And needs no cost on RIR fees. Moreover, no limited PI might potentially cause serious BGP4 scaling issue, considering the multihoming requirement in IPv6 might explode.
> 
> This.
> 
> (Actually there's 3 options - BGP+PI, ULA+NPTv6, and PA space from the
> provider, potentially having multiple prefixes from multiple providers
> active at the same time.  Which currently has more drawbacks than benefits,
> but has the potential to be more lightweight and at the same time more
> powerful than both BGP+PI and ULA+NPTv6 for "end user networks")
> 
> Gert Doering
>        -- NetMaster
> -- 
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
> 
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops