On Apr 2, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
Tony Hain wrote:
In any case, the 66nat effort is a solution looking for a problem,
but if it
does exist it should be based on technical rather than policy issues.
Can we develop a list of techincal issues that are drivers for
IPv6NATs?
Address Independence
and multihoming?
Topology hiding
Address Amplification
Is this tied into prefix allocations or is this a separate one?
And what else?
The business/business matter might be an example of topology hiding,
but I think it is a sufficiently special case that it bears calling out.
BTW, I am working on a non-NAT proposal for topology hiding (not
discussing what your internal network structure is).
In that context, you imght want to review
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-v6ops-b2b-private-routing
and http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4864.txt
In the former case, I will argue that a DMZ router, perhaps virtual,
that has exactly two /128 ULA static routes, one in each direction,
goes a long way in the intended direction. My IT department basically
told me it wasn't going to happen, however. They are comfortable with
NAT, and after we give them the product they request they will
consider moving the affected services to IPv6.
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
