Le 25 oct. 2010 à 18:30, Chris Engel a écrit : >> My point is that if I have the choice, I will chose a vendor >> that doesn't require that I manage its CPE to obtain IPv6 >> incoming connectivity. Vendors clearly do what they want, but >> their clients too. >> > > Remi, that's great. I don't think anyones trying to tell you what vendors you > must choose or your vendors what choices they must make in thier deployments. > That's kinda been my whole point all along. The only thing which I THINK is > being said is... hey under many NATv44 deployments certain things were true, > under NATv66 those things are no longer true. If you want a way to recover > some of that same functionality, you can do this.
Yes, and my contribution is to add "and you can also do that, with the following pros and cons". (In this case, and unless I am mistaken, more pros than cons ;-)) > Heck, were I a vendor responsible for deploying CPE for public end users > under IPv6 (I'm not), I think I would actualy give clients a CHOICE of which > way thier CPE was delivered to them when provisioning services... with a > little plain language explanation of what each choice meant...and nice little > radio button/check box for them to indicate thier choice. > How crazy is that? Not crazy at all. Actually, draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-16, AFAIK about to become an RFC says: REC-49: Internet gateways with IPv6 simple security capabilities MUST provide an easily selected configuration option that permits a "transparent mode" of operation that forwards all unsolicited flows regardless of forwarding direction, i.e. not to use the IPv6 simple security capabilities of the gateway. The transparent mode of operation MAY be the default configuration. Regards, RD _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
