On 2007-07-05 05:11, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "Perry Lorier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
One of the arguments by the anti-ULA crowd is that if someone is
unable to also get PI space, they will NAT their ULAs to PA space
rather than assigning the PA space to hosts directly, because NAT is
perceived as less hassle than renumbering every few months.
Except with v6 you can quite easily have multiple prefixes on an
interface. So you can have your ULA prefixes for your internal
services (dns servers, smtp servers, whatever) and use your globally
routable IPv6 addresses for IPv6 connectivity.
The fact that one _can_ assign both ULAs and PA space to hosts is
irrelevant; I'm well aware of that. NAT is perceived by IT folks as
less hassle than renumbering hosts. PA space implies frequent
renumbering. Therefore, many (most?) IT depts who cannot get PI space
will use NAT rather than assign PA space to hosts.
I don't see why. Most IT managers are painfully aware of the hassle
caused by NAT (e.g. when setting up their VoIP infrastructure
or their remote-acess VPN infrastructure). Hopefully they will read
RFC 4192 and 4864 and apply appropriate pressure to their suppliers.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
