Hi Brian and James,
On Jan 26, 2009, at 4:39 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
James,
On 2009-01-25 13:29, james woodyatt wrote:
...
While SHIM6 is complicated, I would say that its main detraction as
an
alternative to NAT66 is that it doesn't have a very good incremental
deployment story. It is, however, not the only way to design a shim
layer aimed at giving us multi-homing and provider independence. I
suspect there are better ways to address that problem, which would
still
require updates to existing IPv6 node implementations while
allowing for
a more incremental deployment than SHIM6 does.
I'd be interested to see a proof of concept that this can be done.
There
was quite a lot of discussion of alternative approaches before the
shim6
direction was chosen, reflected in RFC 4177, 4218 and 4219.
Does one of you want to write a draft about how an enterprise network
could achieve address independence using SHIM6 and present it at the
BOF as an alternative solution to this problem? I am not fully up-to-
date on the shim6 work, and I don't think I understand how it would
provide address independence.
In case we have a terminology issue... I would define address
independence as:
- The IP addresses in use inside the local network (for nodes, ACLs,
logs) do not need to be renumbered if the ISP changes a site's
external address prefix.
- The IP addresses in use inside the local network (for nodes, ACLs,
logs) do not need to be renumbered when a site changes ISPs.
- It is not necessary for an administrator to convince an ISP to route
his or her internal addresses.
Margaret
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
