Bob,
On 2009-04-03 14:18, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
<snip>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> Would that be only sec 6?
That was the intention of the authors of 4864, but we might have missed
something.
However, address amplification is *not* on my list. We really need ISPs
to give (well, actually rent out) short enough prefixes that this
excuse for NAT utterly vanishes.
Brian
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
