Ole Troan wrote: > > > Mike Saywell wrote: > > > >>I can't really see the motivations to do NAT under v6 when it's so easy > >>to have multiple addresses on an interface anyway. Joining 2 networks > >>which use the same address site-local addresses would be nowhere near > >>as painfull as before since it's that much easier to re-number one of > >>them under v6. > >> > > Multiple addresses means the application has to choose which to use. This is > > a non-starter. > > IPv6 has multiple addresses anyway. or do you propose to remove > link-locals too?
Multiple addresses per host are a real-world feature of IPv4 and have always been a design goal of IPv6. We've already defined the default address selection algorithm (RFC 3484). Applications are welcome to use a different algorithm, but they don't need to, which is why the default was defined. (RFC 3484 will need touching up, if we confirm the deprecation of site-local.) Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
