Hi, On Oct 21, 2010, at 8:34 AM, S.P.Zeidler wrote:
> Hi, > > Thus wrote [email protected] ([email protected]): > >> Section 11 of your draft states that the ULA prefix should be selected >> randomly. >> >> Have you considered selection of ULA prefix(es) for internal network in such >> a manner that it/they can be translated to NAT uplink's /64 prefix in >> checksum neutral fashion? > > That will likely not work if you have several prefixes that you want to > translate into. Teemu is referring here to a specific deployment scenario, which is using a cellular phone as a mobile router. In this case, there is only one uplink and the uplink always has a single /64. I admit the deployment scenario is rather specific/limited but not necessarily a corner case (expecting that the penetration of cellular phones with e.g. WLAN is going to be wide spread). > > This is the scenario where prefix translation does not get used to prevent > renumbering but to make multi-homing with several distinct /48 PA to > different uplink providers halfway sane, by delegating the routing > decisions back to the router (NAT66 device) instead of requiring every > host on the LAN to be able to make useful routing decisions and pick > the right source prefix. > > regards, > spz - Jouni _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
