Tomas, Thanks. Does this exactly implement draft-mrw-nat66-09.txt?
It would be better to refer to NPTv6 not NAT66, I think. Regards Brian Carpenter On 2011-03-04 20:10, Tomas Podermanski wrote: > On 3/3/11 8:48 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> On 2011-03-03 19:51, S.P.Zeidler wrote: >>> Thus wrote Brian E Carpenter ([email protected]): >>> >>>> On 2011-03-03 10:49, S.P.Zeidler wrote: >>>>> Thus wrote Brian E Carpenter ([email protected]): >>>>> >>>>>> On 2011-03-03 09:30, S.P.Zeidler wrote: >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> Which applications will have trouble with address stability and >>>>>>> provider independence, thus requiring you to make the benefits of NPTv6 >>>>>>> line up with the applications you want to use?? >>>>>> The usual ones - those that for whatever reason have explicit >>>>>> dependency on the IP address of the peer. >>>>> i.e. they will have trouble with PI addresses also? >>>> No, why? >>> I am trying to point out that you (and the draft) are claiming that. >>> >>> The benefit of NPTv6 is address stability and provider independence. >>> The benefit of PI is address stability and provider independence. >>> >>> The cost of the method NPTv6 applies to get that benefit is that the >>> addresses change in flight. -This- is the issue. >>> >>> The benefit does not cause any trouble. >>> The means by which you reach this benefit may. >>> >>> You see the distinction? >> Of course. PI has the cost of exploding the BGP4 table. >> NPTv6 has the cost of destroying address transparency. >> >> Since SHIM6 has neither of these costs, are you surprised >> that I prefer it? >> > I completely agree with you. SHIM6 is definitely better solution than > MAP66. But the problem is that SHIM66 requires support for both server > and client side. Living in the real world we can not expect that SHIM66 > will be widely supported in less than 5 or 10 years. SHIM66 is nice and > great solution but not for today. > > MAP66 is a pragmatic solution that can work today (working > implementation of map66 exists - http://map66.sourceforge.net/). Beleive > me, there is really huge demand from enterprise to have solution like > MAP66. MAP66 is easy to understand, easy to implement, follows habits > that people are used to using in IPv4 world and can work immediately. > >>From application perspective, address rewriting used by MAP66 is not a > new issue. The technique is used by enterprise to mapping public > addresses to DMZ for many ears. Almost all application had to deal with > it somehow. > > Tomas > > _______________________________________________ > nat66 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 > _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
