On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > Benny Amorsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One thing that has not been mentioned so far in the discussion is that > > NAT is empowering many users. It allows them to share connectivity, > > working around draconian policies imposed on them by outside entities > > such as ISP's. With NAT, any single address can now give access to a > > whole network, and it can even happen recursively. No need to ask anyone > > for extra addresses, no need to play with routing tables or proxy arp... [...] > but I strongly agree that autoconfiguration of routers (including the > ability of a router to ask its upstream routers for a /64 prefix) is > a significant missing piece for IPv6.
.. IMHO, that may be too "technological" way to solve the problem (of course, we still need it, but I'm arguing that we may very well need something else too!). Very likely this calls for the limited form of Bridge-like ND-proxies, or something. That's how you can extend your network like magic (provided the ISP gives you at least /64), without having to configure anything. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
