Paul Vixie wrote:
... all of this ignores the fact that, architecturally, NATs have been
rejected as bad for end-to-end connectivity. To minimize problems caused by
NAT, it would probably be better to use autoconfiguration (stateless or
DHCP) to assign PA addresses to hosts (in addition to any non- globally-
routed space used).
where PA is available because connectivity to the global internet is
available, i agree. but if the connectivity realm of interest doesn't happen
to include a the global internet, NAT may not be nec'y even if ULA-G is used.
Of course.
Perhaps we should call them Unique Global Addresses, (UGAs), if that TLA
isn't too easily confused with the University of Georgia... Aren't
acronyms fun? :-)
If I have a neighborhood network and want to peer with adjacent
neighborhoods to make an ad-hoc metro network, I'd be happy to announce
my ULA-G block and accept whatever UGA/ULA-G/ULA-C/ULA routes my
neighboring networks would like to announce (with the exception of those
covered by my block, of course). I'll be happy to give my hosts U?A
addresses so they can communicate with the rest of the city at WLAN/MAN
speeds, as well as PA addresses to communicate with the rest of the
world at Internet speed.
-Scott
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
