On Sep 11, 2012, at 12:06 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > o An application instance wishing to establish communication with a > peer "behind" an NPTv6 Translator may need to use a different > address to reach that peer depending on whether the instance is > behind the same NPTv6 Translator or external to it.
a problem Happy Eyeballs easily addresses, and which RFC 3484 and 3484-bis do not. > my point is that encouraging NPTv6 propagates this set > of problems in the IPv6 world. They aren't going to go away > along with IPv4. Well, yes, but since edge networks are *not* getting PA addresses from each of their upstream providers and putting a /64 on each LAN from each such address, but instead getting PI address space, we have no scalable solution for that issue. What's that rule called? TAANSTAAFL, as I recall. Pretending won't make it otherwise. Either the service providers deal with the complexities of the IPv4 route table, or the edge networks deal with the complexities of managing prefixes from each of multiple upstream PA prefixes, or DNS advertises inside and outside addresses somehow. Pick one. _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
