On Mar 15, 2011, at 6:12 PM, james woodyatt wrote: > On Mar 15, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Fred Baker wrote: >> >> The PCP conversation is with the firewall functionality, which is COMPLETELY >> AND 100% SEPARATE FROM THE NPTv6 TRANSLATOR FUNCTIONALITY. > > Not true entirely true. > > Using NPTv6 to facilitate site multi-homing as described in section 2.4 means > that hosts may have multiple external addresses and PCP servers with which to > communicate their port control needs to IPv6 firewalls (c.f. REC-48 in RFC > 6092) for ports bound to their single locally prefixed interface identifiers.
"Since there is significant detriment caused by modifying transport layer headers and very little, if any, benefit to the use of port mapping in IPv6, NPTv6 Translators that comply with this specification MUST NOT perform port mapping." > Look, you don't have to design a PCP proxy server in this draft. You just > need to point out that PCP will need one. Either that or you need to point > out that site multi-homing with NPTv6 isn't compatible with PCP. Pick one, > but please don't just ignore the issue. I'm sure that the community will be well informed by your draft when you file it. _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
