I believe the implication comes when people assume that ULA-C addresses will be applied on hosts that need direct communication with the DFZ. As ULA-C is "non-routable" then NAT or some sort of proxy would be required.
In a network I was designing it would be a non-issue. If a host required access to the DFZ it would get a PI address. Why make things complicated when you can make them simple? > -----Original Message----- > From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 5:27 PM > To: Leo Vegoda; Scott Leibrand > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt > > Maybe I am missing the point, but there seems to be an > implication that ULA-C necessarily implies IPv6 NAT; am I > misinterpreting? If not, then I don't quite understand why > this implication is being drawn. Can someone please explain? > > Thanks - Fred > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
