RFC 3489 did not support v6 address families but 5389 does - have a
glance at section 15.1.
On Jan 25, 2009, at 10:57 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
really
On Jan 26, 2009, at 5:29 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
