Thus spake "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The reference to NATv6 confuses me. There's nothing about ULA-*
that leads to NAT. Users will have PA (or PI for the lucky few) prefixes
for global connectivity. ULA-* is for local use (in the sense that RFC
4864 uses "local").
One of the arguments by the anti-ULA crowd is that if someone is unable to
also get PI space, they will NAT their ULAs to PA space rather than
assigning the PA space to hosts directly, because NAT is perceived as less
hassle than renumbering every few months. As a pro-ULA (just not the -C
or -G variants) person, I have to admit I'd do that if I couldn't get PI
space. I'm anti-NAT, like most IETFers, but I'd still use it if it were the
least-bad option.
There's also the usual "NAT makes me more secure" flamefest, but that
applies to folks with PI space as well. There's a lot of PIv4 space hidden
behind NATs for "security" reasons...
S
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
