I don't think it has been mentioned as a reason why NAT took off, but the other thing
that may need to be provided is the "default "security" with no configuration" that
these end users believe these NATting (or NATting + firewall) products provide.
Of course, tight default security policies a
Brian,
> Brian Haberman wrote:
> [separating the Identifier and Locator aspects of IP addresses.]
> even though we would to request that discussion not continue on
> the ipv6 mailing list, the chairs do not want to put a stop to
> anyone who wishes to continue the investigation.
IMHO this is a pu
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Keith Moore wrote:
> Benny Amorsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One thing that has not been mentioned so far in the discussion is that
> > NAT is empowering many users. It allows them to share connectivity,
> > working around draconian policies imposed on them by outside enti
DHCPv6 prefix delegation,
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-prefix-delegation-04.txt, provides this
capability. Interoperability among several implementations has been
demonstrated at TAHI and Connectathon.
- Ralph
At 03:31 AM 9/24/2003 +0200, Benny Amorsen wrote:
In order to reach the same ease of conf
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-prefix-delegation-04.txt
The doc has been sent to the IESG for publication.
- Ralph
At 10:12 PM 9/23/2003 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> > but I strongly agree that autoconfiguration of routers (including the
> > ability of a router to ask its upstream routers for a /64 pr
Keith Moore wrote:
maybe I'm the one missing something. where is the protocol for this defined?
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-prefix-delegation-03.txt
Eliot
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative R
> > but I strongly agree that autoconfiguration of routers (including the
> > ability of a router to ask its upstream routers for a /64 prefix) is
> > a significant missing piece for IPv6.
>
> Why is this "missing"? Isn't this what prefix-delegation does?
maybe I'm the one missing something. wh
Keith Moore wrote:
but I strongly agree that autoconfiguration of routers (including the
ability of a router to ask its upstream routers for a /64 prefix) is
a significant missing piece for IPv6.
Why is this "missing"? Isn't this what prefix-delegation does?
Eliot
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 03:31:23 +0200
Benny Amorsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One thing that has not been mentioned so far in the discussion is that
> NAT is empowering many users. It allows them to share connectivity,
> working around draconian policies imposed on them by outside entities
> such
One thing that has not been mentioned so far in the discussion is that
NAT is empowering many users. It allows them to share connectivity,
working around draconian policies imposed on them by outside entities
such as ISP's. With NAT, any single address can now give access to a
whole network, and it
> Keith Moore writes:
> > > From my SF-centric Nexus-of-the-web-trendiod
> > > standpoint: for residential use (especially with
> > > broadband) it is simply impossible to have an
> > > argument about the evils of NAT.
> >
> > that's the stupidest thing that's been said here in a long time.
At 08:57 AM 9/23/2003 +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> True, but if we wish to remain relevant, something has to be written
> somewhere. I fully agree that doing so in *this* document may not be
> worth it; it might be worth it in some other doc, e.g. sl-impact.
I agree with Pekka. HAving this
All,
One of our charter items is to produce updates of
RFC 2461 and 2462 in order to progress them to Draft Standard.
As a part of that effort, I would like to bring to the Work
Group's attention, some work that has been done in SEND.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-send-psreq-03
As a datapoint, it might be worth reading the comments posted to slashdot relating to
this story
End Of the Line for SpeakFreely: NATed to Death
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/20/1556253&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=185&tid=95
(And yes, I got sucked into it, and ended up looking like I'd j
Keith Moore writes:
> > From my SF-centric Nexus-of-the-web-trendiod
> > standpoint: for residential use (especially with
> > broadband) it is simply impossible to have an
> > argument about the evils of NAT.
>
> that's the stupidest thing that's been said here in a long time.
>
> NATs a
> Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, then why bother migrating to IPv6
> at all? What have you gained?
Early presence on the market.
Michel.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrativ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Therefore, we suggest that interested parties create a
> separate mailing list to discuss the topic of identifier and
> locator separation. If needed, the chairs can help arrange
> for the creation of an exploratory mailing list.
This _does_ touc
All,
The chairs have noted the level of interest garnered
by the discussion of separating the Identifier and Locator
aspects of IP addresses. There is apparently a high level
of interest in exploring possible ways of separating these
functionalities and gauging the benefits and downsides.
> well use v6 through the NAT :-) so you keep on friendly terms with the folks
> who think NAT is a security "must have" and still get to give all real users
> an individual IP address.
sort of seems like a contradiction - either you have the NAT to provide
security or you use the same address fo
>
> > Is it really true that most of the market chose to use NAT
> rather than
> > tunneling or dual-stack for IPv6 transition mechanism?
>
> there is zero truth to that. if you're going to use NAT
> there is (almost)
> no point in using IPv6.
>
well use v6 through the NAT :-) so you keep on frie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On tisdag, sep 23, 2003, at 07:03 Europe/Stockholm, Michel Py wrote:
> I have to say that given the recent trends and developments, I am now
> on
> the fence WRT joining the camp that says that NAT is unavoidable for v6
> so we might as well make it
21 matches
Mail list logo
