What I am failing to understand is what we are looking for. The <insert letter>GUPI model will drive the development of NATs.
Why do you think so?
In particular, why do you think that GUPI addresses would drive the development of NATs any more than the current IPv6 site-local addresses? Do you really think that it is realistic to just tell everyone to use provider-assigned addresses throughout their network? We've been getting feedback from network administrators that they need a form of local addressing that allows their internal numbering, firewall configuration, etc. to be independent of their ISP-provided addresses. People want to use site-locals for this, but the ambiguity of site-locals causes all sorts of problems for applications, routing protocols, transport protocols, etc. especially when running on site border nodes (nodes that are in more than one site at the same time). It is my belief that if we ignore this problem, and simply limit site- locals to disconnected networks (a la RFC 1918 addresses), then IPv6 NAT will arise to allow sites to separate internal addressing from external addressing. What we really need is a better way to solve this problem, one that doesn't have the problems of site-local addresses. And, that's why we're discussing GUPI addresses. Is there a better way to solve this problem that we haven't considered? Margaret -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
