Le 25 oct. 2010 à 13:17, Gert Doering a écrit : > ... Petra (in this thread) is talking about medium > sized enterprises that do not want a slot in the global routing table, > and at the same time want to be multihomed to multiple providers, and > *not* have multiple /64s on every LAN in the enterprise.
That's what tools.ietf.org/html/draft-despres-softwire-sam-01 sec. 3.3 is about. Provided hosts support it: - e2e addresses are preserved - it works even with an independent CPE per ISP (which isn't the case with NAT66) I didn't find the time to write a new draft on just this case for Beijing, but I plan it for after IETF 79. The intention is to call it TRANsparent Multihoming (TRAM), a name discussed with Dan Wing in Maastricht. If you take time to look at the SAM draft, your reactions will be most welcome. >> Besides, breaking e2e address transparency is the worse that can happen >> to discourage people to deploy and use IPv6. > > Enterprises do not want e2e transparency regarding their networks - they > want well-controlled and well-regulated communications, managed by a > border gateway device (call it firewall, nat box, ...) Where they are desired, firewalls have to do their own work (they by no means need addresses translation for this). Per se, the stateless mechanism proposed by Margaret and Fred in their NAT66 draft, does break e2e address preservation, but doesn't do anything to prevent incoming calls. (Their NAT66 draft says: "RECOMMENDED that NAT66 devices include an IPv6 firewall function, and the firewall function SHOULD be configured by default to block all incoming connections."). Regards RD _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
