On 07/30/2012 04:32 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
"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.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. It changes the world in that it gets the masses of people using and getting familiar with v6 and all of its considerations. I've heard (?) there are v6-only ISP's but for the rest of us unwashed masses, it's still rfc1918 and NAT's where if you are geeky enough to look at an ifconfig you'd see a boring link local address that never gets used for much of anything. As far as standards, one thing it may be interesting to this working group is the assignment of ULA's across homenet routers. AFAIK there isn't a way to do that automagically? Mike _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
