On Oct 28, 2010, at 17:45, Roger Marquis wrote: > james woodyatt wrote: >> >> I don't understand how this answers my question, because I don't know >> what's wrong with applications expecting to know A) what addresses the >> network presents to their peers for them, or B) what addresses the network >> presents to their peers for all their other peers. > > Your mal-understanding is most likely due to having responded to what you > paraphrased instead of what I originally wrote.
Technically, I didn't paraphrase. I quoted while eliding extraneous text. And I was responding to the quoted text. The original text included the compound phrase "to hosts unprotected by statefulness and to topologies unabstracted by NAT." I didn't have any questions about the former infinitive phrase; it was the latter phrase, the one I quoted, which read, "to topologies unabstracted by NAT," that I was asking about. > Did you understand the analogy to ATT's demanding to know every phone user's > GPS coordinates? No, sorry. I could make neither heads nor tails of your analogy. I failed to see how it connects with the question I'm asking. >> I hope I'm inferring correctly from the above paragraph that the reason you >> find RFC 4193 insufficient is that it places the burden for using privacy > > RFC 4193 replaces RFC 1918. It has nothing directly to do with NAT. Ooops! My mistake. I meant Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6 [RFC 4941], which you would presumably want to assign statefully as temporary addresses with Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) [RFC 3315]. Have I conveyed my question to you adequately now? -- james woodyatt <[email protected]> member of technical staff, communications engineering _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
