On 6 aug 2008, at 12:26, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
The scenario where a regular tunnel is terminated and IPv4 packets
with RFC 1918 source addresses are then translated by a NAT44 is
rather suboptimal because it requires configuration/provisioning of
an
address to the source host that is unique within the scope of the
NAT44.
I consider that uniqueness is a feature... it allows seamless
connectivity
within the realm in question.
RFC 1918 is non-unique by nature. You can of course strive for
uniqueness within a limited context, but in the case of NAT by a
service provider this is going to be really, really hard because the
service provider then has to impose an RFC 1918 numbering scheme on
its customers.
With dual stack light none of this is necessary because the IPv6
source addresses are unique, even if there is a non-unique RFC 1918
address in the source address field of the inner IPv4 header.
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
