> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Margaret Wasserman > Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 10:29 AM > To: Fred Baker > Cc: Keith Moore; [email protected] HappyFunBall > Subject: Re: [nat66] Residential use case > > > Hi Fred, > > On Oct 25, 2010, at 1:12 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > >> Then we are in complete agreement. NAT66 isn't needed for most > >> home users -- a stateful firewall would serve the same purpose. > > > > You may be interested to review > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-troan-multihoming-without-nat66 > > "IPv6 Multihoming without Network Address Translation", Ole Troan, > > David > > Miles, Satoru Matsushima, Tadahisa Okimoto, Dan Wing, 26-Jul-10 > > > > The question of multihoming with or without NAT66 (specifically > > referring to this draft) was brought up by a large residential > > access provider, who given current solutions sees NAT66 as the only > > solution to its *residential* problems. Basically, the point of the > > draft is to describe their scenario and state that they need > > solutions to three residential problems or they will consider > > themselves as having no alternative to NAT66. > > Wow, I do have to read that. From the name, I thought the document > said exactly the opposite, although I should have trusted that author > list to come up with something insightful. Thanks for the pointer!
No insight, other than: fix four problems on hosts to eliminate four reasons for NAT66. Solutions to those four problems are already moving forward in MIF. -d _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
