>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Thomas <[email protected]> writes: Michael> If we believe that ipv6 is ready to go for mass deployment, why do we Michael> not pressure home router vendors to default to sending router advertisements Michael> with ULA addresses that, if necessary, get NAT'd at the border just like Michael> 192.168 space does today.
Michael> I mean, nothing bad would happen, right?
>> Do you mean, NAT64'ed?
Michael> Yes, just nat v6 internal addresses to v4 on the isp side when you
Michael> don't have v6 connectivity. If you're reading this and inclined to
Michael> a NAT rant, you probably didn't understand my post.
I'm not going to rant until I understand you, thus my question.
How does ULA+NAT64 at the edge replacing RFC1918+NAT44 change the world?
I think it would be a nice thing to do, and it requires no standards
action.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
pgpaxftVoZvMY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
