Totally aggree on the lower 64 bit thing and that it will be easier to stay
with an /48 prefix. But regarding the prefix we will not have a big choice
since there are already longer prefixes (/56 or /60) out there in real world
scenarios.
Cu
olaf
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email protected]]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. März 2009 04:29
An: Bonneß, Olaf
Cc: [email protected]
Betreff: Re: [nat66] NAT66 / IPv6 NAT and assumption of /48
It would be highly desirable if, at least for lengths at or shorter than
/64, the lower 64 bits if the IPv6 address field could normally be left
unchanged by the NAT66. This can easily be done for /48 or shorter
prefixes. If we are prepared to locate and modify the TCP/UDP
checksums, it can easily be done for lengths /49../64. But that is a
nontrivial compelxity. Keeping the requirement to /48 keeps the
solution much simpler.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
[email protected] wrote:
>>From my perspective the NAT solution that might be specified within 6AI
>>should be able to deal also with prefixes shorter, equal or _longer_ than a
>>/48 since there might be ISPs giving out such longer prefixes to their
>>customers.
> (A reason for that are the changed RIR policies that allow the ISPs freely to
> decide if they want to give a /48, a /56 or even a /61 to its customers.)
>
> Removing the /48 assumption will have major impact e.g. on Margarets draft.
>
> br olaf
> _______________________________________________
> nat66 mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
>
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
