> > You don't get the point. If enough hosts come programmed to enforce > > scope restrictions, then the non compliant product ends up with a > > deployment headache and has to be fixed. This is basically the root of > > Internet standards -- enforcement by peer pressure. > > The Globally addressed peer hosts when a communicating host is > behind NAT are talking to another Global peer address at the NAT > agent.
That is correct. The enforcement will not be by the remote site, except maybe if the remote site uses IPSEC. > This only requires complicity on the NAT box and the host, > not the peer communicator. The proposed requirement provides > no further burden to implementors than NATv4 systems. Your point is the mirror image of my argument. If a sufficient fraction of the hosts refuses to play along with the NAT, then the NAT will not be able to work. The laws of network physics are such that, if solution A (NAT) is broken, then the easiest next solution will be chosen (advertise a global prefix). The problem is that vendors of host software can only deliberately brake the NAT scenario if they have some "air cover", i.e. if the standard clearly says that communication between addresses of different scopes is prohibited. Which is why it should say so... -- Christian Huitema -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
