RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

["Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>]

> No.  The open concern then becomes that of applications
> that carry addresses in the payload -- would border
> routers require a knowledge base of applications to
> translate a la IPv4 NAT?

Yuck. I am totally opposed to ALGs. Although higher layer apps that
embed port numbers or other info in the payload are not elegant, they do
exist. Any solution that requires an ALG is a non-starter.

IPv6 was designed with the implicit promise that we could restore
end-to-end connectivity that was lost with NAT. NAT is not bad; it
simply is a necessary evil. There are no regrets to have invented NAT,
as it was necessary. However, it would be a terrible mistake to
reproduce with IPv6.

Should we go that road, I already have The Perfect IPv6 Multihoming
Solution:

- We already have RFC 1918 for IPv6: Site local.
- We keep the multihomed IPv4 backbone as is, and use 6to4.
- Behind the 6to4 address, we put an IPv6 NAT (TM)(c)
- This solves all the problems in the world: terrorism, hunger, and even
IPv6 multihoming.

You don't like it? Don't invent IPv6 NAT.

Michel.