Re: draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-03.txt

["EricLKlein" <ericlklein@softhome.net>]

Tim,
> >
> > All I want is a consistent message to go out from this WG as to the
status
> > of private addresses and NAT.
>
> I'm confused from what you write Eric.
>
> Private addresses exist in IPv6, as ULAs or CA ULAs.  "Site locals" were
> deprecated, but ULAs are different (reducing the ambiguity issue) and
> CA ULAs different again (in theory removing the ambiguity issue).

A ULA is not truly the same as private addresses. Private addresses are
those "un-routable" addresses codified in RFC 1918 for IPv4 and were
originally defined as FEC0:: through FEC8:: in IPv6. These were basically
removed because they were not unique. ULAs by defination are unique (hence
that first U).

> NAT could be used for IPv6, but anyone doing so is shooting themselves in
the
> foot and should just stick with IPv4+NAT.

Agreed, not to mention that they would be going against the spirit of unique
addressable.

> Many sites will use IPv4+NAT alongside IPv6 (without NAT).  They can then
> use IPv6 for more advanced p2p and inter-site applications, and use IPv4
> for legacy apps like mail and web browsing.
>
I agree with this and I anticipate that it will remain this way for may
years to come.
Eric