Dear JFC, Many thanks for your detailed explanation!
But I still don't understand that, in my understanding, network prefix is a part of IPv6 network address, so the network prefix translation is actually a "partial" network address translation, right? Best Regards Xiangsong ----- 原邮件 ----- 发件人: JFC Morfin <[email protected]> 日期: 星期五, 三月 4日, 2011 下午6:12 主题: Re: [nat66] Fwd: New Version Notification - draft-mrw-nat66-08.txt 收件人: Xiangsong Cui <[email protected]>, 'Fred Baker' <[email protected]>, 'NAT66 HappyFunBall' <[email protected]> > Dear Xiangsong Cui, > > The change in terminology from NAT66 to NPTv6 is the correct > acknowledgment of your remark. IDNA2008 served as a first example > of > the way the Internet technology is able to support a very large > diversity in uncoupling the necessary stability, robustness, > simplicity of the inside network itself and the diversity, > versality > and extremely large size of the outside usage. This uncoupling > necessitates an Internet Use Interface (IUI) between the inside > network and outside users. This is provided by IDNA2008 in naming, > this is provided by NPTv6 in numbering. This calls for the IUI to > be > installed at the ISP or preferably on the userside. > > Now, what is of interest and was discussed through my appeals to > IESG > and IAB and their response last year irt. naming [but actually > uncoupling and the acknowledgment of the principle of subsidiarity > in > the Internet architecturer in addidition to adaptation ability > (principle of permanent change, RFC 1958) and simplicity (RFC > 3439)], > is that the IUI is also seen from the user side. This IUI's target > is > to provude stability, mobility, specificity to the people centric > digital ecosystem experience: this is not limited to interfacing > the > Internet and even to the Internet technology. In that perspective > it > becomes an Intelligent User Interface, abiding by the fundamental > Internet principle of a dump network and intelligent fringes. > > On the naming side, the equivalent to the NPT is the ML-DNS I work > on, which is to accept any language orthotypography on an exqual > footing and any naming or addressing plan (classes), while > respecting > and protecting IDNA2008 on the inside Internet side. In the NPTv6 > case the user's IDv6 (i.e. the IID) is protected and can be used > as > encapsualted in any kind of header, starting with the IPv6 prefix, > but also a domain name, or another technology address system, or > even > a different Internet addressing plans. > > This means that for the emerging IUse community (Intelligent use > of > the world digital ecosystem) IDv6 can be used right now by its own > right, even under IPv4 and provide by its IUse documentation a > strong > incentive to switch to IPv6. Another interesting advantage for > small/medium users is that the IPSec support can be used at smart > plugs at the fringes of personal domain zones throughout the network. > > Best > jfc > > > > At 08:53 04/03/2011, Xiangsong Cui wrote: > >Hi Fred, > > > >I haven't read this draft, in fact, I'm reading RFC3002. > > > > > >In section 4.3.4, it reads, > > > > It was recommended that an effort be made to eliminate any > > requirement for NAT in an IPv6 Internet. The IAB believes > that the > > IPv6 address space is large enough to preclude any > requirement for > > private address allocation [55] or address translation due to > address> space shortage [15]. Therefore, accomplishing this > should primarily > > require installing and enforcing proper address allocation > policy on > > registry and service providers. It was recommended to establish > > policies requiring service providers to allocate a sufficient > > quantity of global addresses for a sites use. The feeling > was that > > NAT should be easily eliminated provided efficient strategies are > > defined to address renumbering [17,62] and mobility [37] issues. > > > >My questions here are, > > > >Is the requirement for NAT in IPv6 Internet avoidless? > >Cann't we (service provider) find appropriate policy or > strategies to > >address this problem? > >Or the Internet situation has changed? > > > >Thanks! > >Xiangsong > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of > > > Fred Baker > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 6:39 AM > > > To: NAT66 HappyFunBall > > > Subject: [nat66] Fwd: New Version Notification - draft-mrw- > nat66-08.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > > > > Date: February 28, 2011 2:30:03 PM PST > > > > To: [email protected], [email protected], > > > [email protected], [email protected] > > > > Subject: New Version Notification - draft-mrw-nat66-08.txt > > > > > > > > New version (-08) has been submitted for draft-mrw-nat66-08.txt. > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mrw-nat66-08.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > Diff from previous version: > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-mrw-nat66-08 > > > > > > > > IETF Secretariat. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > nat66 mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 > > > >_______________________________________________ > >nat66 mailing list > >[email protected] > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 > >
<<attachment: c00111037.vcf>>
_______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
