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

Mark,

On 2015-10-19 10:38 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> 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,
So do I, however, that would then not reflect reality in real world 
choices operators / admins need to make.

> because IPv4 NAT
> has caused me and the Internet enough trouble),
Yes, it's been a pain.

> then the limitations
> that even stateless NPT imposes on applications must be referenced:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6296#section-5
Good reference / point.  We should include this in text and refer to that.

thanks,

Victor K

>
>> 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