Unless you have stringent NAT policies (e.g. multi Firewalls that require it
outside your Enterprise), then there is no shortage of IP space in v6.
What is your primary concern?
AJ Jaghori
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu <
m...@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com> wrote:
> Not in th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greetings,
All 8 parallel tracks at the IETF 76 meeting will be broadcast starting
with the commencement of working group sessions on Monday, November 9,
2009 at 0900 JST (GMT +9) and continue until Friday the 13th at 1515
JST. Additionally it is our
On 25 Oct 2009, at 17:42, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Sabahattin Gucukoglu
in particular: we need a simple way to express host relationships
inside an organisation that is independent of external homing.
Well, it would really help if we had more namespaces available to name
things in. Oh, wa
Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> One thing that IPv6 NAT has in advantage to IPv4 NAT is that it can be
> stateless, isomorphic, and port transparent by just translating the
> upper part of the address,
Not at all. Unless the NAT have end to end transparency,
statefull trasnration of raw IP addresses in
Sabahattin,
Note that IPv6 NAT makes multihoming to different ISPs much easier as well.
One thing that IPv6 NAT has in advantage to IPv4 NAT is that it can be
stateless, isomorphic, and port transparent by just translating the
upper part of the address, such as in the case where an enterprise is
Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
> in particular: we need a simple way to
> express host relationships inside an organisation that is independent
> of external homing.
If renumbering is not a problem, it is simple and easy to do so
with IPv4.
You can assign both private and public addresseses to
> From: Sabahattin Gucukoglu
> in particular: we need a simple way to express host relationships
> inside an organisation that is independent of external homing.
Well, it would really help if we had more namespaces available to name
things in. Oh, wait...
Noel
Not in the IPv6 address space, anyway. And if it is, there's
something wrong and we should put it right.
Just been reading IAB's commentary on IPv6 NAT. It seems to me that
we are perpetuating the worst technology in existence *simply* for one
feature, network mobility, that is better ser
