> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Robert Moskowitz > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 1:26 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [nat66] Designing NATs out of the IPv6 deployments > > > 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? > > Then we define what each means and offer solutions today for them.
See RFC 4864. -Dave > BTW, I am working on a non-NAT proposal for topology hiding (not > discussing what your internal network structure is). There is a > general > solution and specific solution paths with existing host technology. Do > have some serious issues to munch on still. It might also address > address amplification, but am not sure. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > nat66 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
