except that he probably would like to be able to reasonably easily obtain new address space for his future business requirements. There are rumored to be issues there. Something related to the word "finite".
On Apr 30, 2010, at 4:43 PM, james woodyatt wrote: > On Apr 30, 2010, at 16:20, Chris Engel wrote: >> >> If NAT provides me exactly the functionality I want now....doesn't break any >> protocols/applications I want to use. The applications/protocols it breaks I >> ACTUALY WANT broken.... why would I want to switch to RISP instead? > > I don't even know why you would want IPv6. It doesn't seem to buy you > anything that you don't already have with IPv4/NAT. > > I was merely countering your assertion that NAT is required to prevent > unique-local routing topology from being exposed to exterior domains. It > isn't, as the example of RSIP demonstrates. Concerns about reachability and > stateful flow tracking can be handled orthogonally with things like > I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security. > > Look, I'm not trying to persuade you that you shouldn't use NAT at your > borders-- indeed, as I said before, your plan to stay IPv4-only on local > networks and to rely on NAT46 gateways to communicate with exterior IPv6 > networks is a perfectly reasonable one. You should go do that. It sounds to > me like the optimal solution for you. > > > -- > james woodyatt <[email protected]> > member of technical staff, communications engineering > > > _______________________________________________ > nat66 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
