From: "Margaret Wasserman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Unfortunately, we don't have a proven/accepted method for doing provider
independent address allocation that will scale..."
====
Since you do not have a "proven/accepted" method, people can just route around the
situation
and that becomes a proven/accepted method....
128-bit DNS AAAA Record Flag Day Formats
2003:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address]
[YMDD]:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address]
1-bit to set the Reserved/Spare ("AM/FM") bit in Fragment Offset [S]
1-bit to set the Don't Fragment (DF) bit [D]
2-bits to select 1 of 4 common TTL values (255, 128, 32, 8) [LL]
1-bit for Options Control [O]
7-bits to set the Identification Field(dst) [FFFFFFF]
4-bits to set the TOS(dst) Field [TTTT]
Default SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT = 0000.0000.0000.0000
FFF.FFFF.TTTT = GGG.SSSS.SSSS
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
IPv8
0QQQQGGGSSSSSSSS[32-bits][Port]
IPv16
0QQQQGGGSSSSSSSS[32-bits][Port]
1AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA[32-bits][Port]
A...A=ASN=32769...65535
Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
----- Original Message -----
From: "Margaret Wasserman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jeroen Massar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "'BINET David FTRD/DMI/CAE'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'JORDI PALET MARTINEZ'" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 9:29 AM
Subject: RE: avoiding NAT with IPv6
>
> Hi Jeroen,
>
> >In IPv6 every enduser should have enough IP's simply
> >because of the simple rule [...]
> >
> >Nevertheless customers should never have any need whatsoever for NAT.
> >If there once is a need for it IPv6 'failed' as it didn't get up to
> >the primary need for IPv6: More addressspace so that everything can be
> >e2e.
>
> Unfortunately, there is another reason why enterprises use NAT that has
> not been addressed in IPv6: provider independence.
>
> Enterprises do not want to be "held hostage" to a particular ISP based
> on their address usage -- they want it to be cheap to move between ISPs
> to gain rate advantages, and they don't want to be adversely affected
> by ISP closures, mergers, etc. By using internal addresses inside of
> their network, and using NAT to reach the global Internet, only a few
> systems need to be renumbered when ISP-provided global addresses change.
>
> So, if we don't come up with a way to allow provider-independent address
> allocation in IPv6, we will probably get IPv6<->IPv6 NAT.
>
> Unfortunately, we don't have a proven/accepted method for doing provider
> independent address allocation that will scale -- the most obvious
> methods would all result in much larger core routing tables, and won't
> scale to Internet proportions. There are folks working on solutions
> to this problem (both in the IETF and the IRTF), and those solutions
> are the best hope that we have to avoid NAT.
>
> In the meantime, though, I wouldn't object to a statement in the IPv6
> node requirements that says that you MUST NOT translate source or
> destination addresses in forwarded packets... even though I don't
> think that it will actually stop anyone.
>
> Margaret
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
