* Iljitsch van Beijnum: > On 14 feb 2008, at 21:49, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> The prevailing assumption is that IPv6 end nodes will be globally >> addressable for practical purporses. I think this is a very unlikely >> outcome. > > Are you saying that there will be IPv6 NAT?
Is a node globally adressable if it never receives any packets you (or others) send? From an upper-layer protocol point of view, I'd say it isn't. > And that we should design protocols running on top of IPv6 to take NAT > into account? These protocols need to take into account that if there's a (virtual) connection between two hosts, it's still not possible to establish arbitrary other (virtual) connections between them. > If yes on both, how can we do that without a NAT specification so that > the IETF can design protocols to work with NAT and vendors can build > NATs that work with IETF protocols? I think the NAT question is a bit of a red herring. I suppose that anything that is broadly NAT-compatible increases its chances it will work well on actually deployed networks, be it IPv4, IPv6, or something else. However, I don't think we will see as much highly dynamic NAT (including port translation) on IPv6 as on IPv4. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
