Dave Thaler wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Robert Moskowitz
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 1:26 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [nat66] Designing NATs out of the IPv6 deployments
Tony Hain wrote:
In any case, the 66nat effort is a solution looking for a problem,
but if it
does exist it should be based on technical rather than policy issues.
Can we develop a list of techincal issues that are drivers for
IPv6NATs?
Address Independence
and multihoming?
Topology hiding
Address Amplification
Is this tied into prefix allocations or is this a separate one?
And what else?
Then we define what each means and offer solutions today for them.
See RFC 4864.
Would that be only sec 6?
-Dave
BTW, I am working on a non-NAT proposal for topology hiding (not
discussing what your internal network structure is). There is a
general
solution and specific solution paths with existing host technology. Do
have some serious issues to munch on still. It might also address
address amplification, but am not sure.
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
