Hi Fred,
On Oct 25, 2010, at 1:12 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
Then we are in complete agreement. NAT66 isn't needed for most
home users -- a stateful firewall would serve the same purpose.
You may be interested to review
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-troan-multihoming-without-nat66
"IPv6 Multihoming without Network Address Translation", Ole Troan,
David
Miles, Satoru Matsushima, Tadahisa Okimoto, Dan Wing, 26-Jul-10
The question of multihoming with or without NAT66 (specifically
referring to this draft) was brought up by a large residential
access provider, who given current solutions sees NAT66 as the only
solution to its *residential* problems. Basically, the point of the
draft is to describe their scenario and state that they need
solutions to three residential problems or they will consider
themselves as having no alternative to NAT66.
Wow, I do have to read that. From the name, I thought the document
said exactly the opposite, although I should have trusted that author
list to come up with something insightful. Thanks for the pointer!
Margaret
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
