RE: ingress filteing problem

["marcelo bagnulo" <mbagnulo@ing.uc3m.es>]

> > By "NAT" I trust we mean reversible NAT... this WG is not about to
> > suggest traditional NAT for IPv6, I don't think. Solutions that
> rewrite
> > the locator(s) and then set them back to their original value before
> > final processing at the destination will not break IPSEC and will not
> > require any transport checksums to be recalculated.
>
> What you describe here is "rewrite at both ends", which supposes that
> both ends are somehow upgraded. My contention is that the solution to
> ingress filtering should be "single site", i.e., not force any special
> processing on the other end, which may well be running a non-updated
> IPv6 network.


Yes, additionally, a solutions that supports "old" IPv6 hosts (i.e. without
any specific multihoming support) within the multihomed site would be
preffered, i guess, since it doesn't impose a flag day in the multihomed
site when all the internal hosts have to be upgraded.

So backward compatibility on external hosts (and sites) and also in internal
hosts

Regards, marcelo