> > Which prompts me to ask the annoying question: should hosts be
> > required to opt *IN* or *OUT*? I don't see any reason why hosts
> > should be required to opt OUT, but I'm prepared to hear arguments
> > for it. I expect they will be highly entertaining.
>
> That comment ("hosts should be able to opt out") sounds like an
> interesting and irrelevant comment. If for example I am using NAT in
> some form to implement GSE (such as using Lancaster University's
> prototype Linux implementation), and am using a ULA internal to a
> network, the ULA will not have routing outside and the only external
> routing in the network is likely to be a default route leading to the
> GSE gateway. So the effect of opting out will be to disable external
> connectivity. Think about the mechanics of this...
Good thing that STUN already defines operation for detecting NAT66 mappings...
-- Christian Huitema
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
