>> If you mean that corporate intranets will want to be isolated from >> e2e routing, I'm sure that's inevitable. > > No, I mean that we may expect to see both corporate and residential > networks wanting to be insulated from e2e *addressing*, not just > routing. I predict they may come to regard address referrals being > broken by translators, except within explicitly coordinated address > realms and mediated by middleboxes (like residential gateways), as a > *feature* of NAT66 rather than an error. Certainly, some of my > colleagues already think that way.
Yes, a lot of people are now so accustomed to a "router" being a NAT that they think this is just how things are supposed to work. And because they think this is how things are supposed to work, they will work to find reasons to justify things working that way, so that they don't have to change their world views. (sigh) > Sure, you could say they're *blindly* copying the IPv4/NAT model, but > they don't see it that way. They think the IPv4/NAT model is better > than the IPv6 model *because* it breaks address referrals. They like > that referrals generally don't work unless you're in the same address > realm or there's an application rendezvous service somewhere mediating > address realm traversal-- *that's* a service that can usually be blocked > by default and opened only where policy allows. Yes, there are people who believe that also. Keith _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
