On 07/30/2012 05:21 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
On Jul 30, 2012, at 11:08 , Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
If we believe that ipv6 is ready to go for mass deployment, why do we
not pressure home router vendors to default to sending router advertisements
with ULA addresses that, if necessary, get NAT'd at the border just like
192.168 space does today.
I mean, nothing bad would happen, right?
What does the conditional phrase "if necessary" mean in your mind? Under what
circumstances do you imagine this would not be "necessary" for operational continuity?
I should add that by native v6 connectivity, you'd also be getting a
provider public v6 as well where rfc3484 saves the day.
Mike
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
