Antonio, So are you suggesting that we replace IPv4 NAT with IPv6 routing proxy?
Best Regards, Jeffrey Dunn Info Systems Eng., Lead MITRE Corporation. (301) 448-6965 (mobile) -----Original Message----- From: Antonio Querubin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 3:08 PM To: Alexandru Petrescu Cc: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; IETF IPv6 Mailing List; Ron Bonica; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Pasi Eronen; Sherman, Kurt T.; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; V6ops Chairs; Martin, Cynthia E. Subject: Re: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes? On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > In a typical WiFi Access Point landscape... > > Sellers of these devices don't have a solution to program the WiFi AP > IPv6 in the same way they'd do it for IPv4. For IPv4, the AP receives > an IPv4 address on the wired Ethernet and then does NAT and subnet > further on the wireless interface. For IPv6, although it receives a > huge /64 IPv6 prefix on the wire it can't offer Stateless Autoconfig on > the wireless interface. This begs again for IPv6 NAT. I'd say it begs for assigning the user a /56 or /48 routed to them on the /64 link. -- Antonio Querubin whois: AQ7-ARIN -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
