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] --------------------------------------------------------------------