> On 3 Apr 2009, at 12:49, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote: >> Either say that address amplification is forever off the table as a >> requirement for IPv6 mechanisms in the space (and I encourage you to >> try to get WG consensus on this matter!), define a better mechanism to >> deal with address amplification than IPv6-to-IPv6 NAPT, or give up and >> write an Internet Draft that defines NAPT66. > >Wes, > > I have no idea how your quote above relates in any way to anything that I said. Nothing I said >today obviously relates to the topic of "address amplification". > >Cheers, > >Ran
You forgot to include my quote of your previous E-mail: > Last, I think this WG ought to explicitly document that one ought > never be allocated an IPv6 Routing Prefix longer than 64 bits If a routing prefix is allocated that is longer than 64 bits, then you may need address amplification in order to use SLAAC. The need for "address amplification" derives from a disparity in the size of the routing prefix given by ISPs and that which the end user wants to use. - Wes _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
