Keith Moore - le (m/j/a) 3/31/09 5:47 AM:
james woodyatt wrote:
It would be very good if we could stop pretending that address
amplification isn't among the reasons users could have for wanting to
deploy NAT for IPv6.
Of course it is a reason. But I can't tell how big a reason it is. And
a lot of that depends on just what ISP IPv6 service offerings look like
a year or three from now. I don't see how to evaluate that at this point.
In the SAM draft, "host-rooted subnets" are included as a useful service
of NAT44s.
The ability to deploy subnets behind nodes that are seen as hosts (i.e.
without adding the prefix delegation mechanism to that of address
assignments) is IMHO something to be also available in IPv6, preferably
with at least one way to avoid sacrificing e2e transparency.
Although I am convinced that SAM still needs work, I do believe that it
is a fairly advanced approach toward a solution to this problem.
Regards,
RD
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
