Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-01.txt [not DCHPv6]

["Eric Klein" <ericlklein@softhome.net>]

Stig Venaas Wrote:
> There's been discussion regarding DHCPv6 PD and route injection. This
> is sort of a degenerated case of that (:
>
> I believe how to do injection is the biggest issue here. I don't quite
> believe in all hosts in a site injection routes. Maybe some kind of
> tunneling is easier.
>
> Mechanisms for injecting host routes could be useful for people doing
> anycast though. This is done today but then with just a few trusted
> hosts, not all the hosts in a site.

Although these are valid points, I would think that these DHCPv6 issues
should be brought up in relation to the DHCPv6 drafts rather than the NAP
one.

>
> I must say though that I never understood what one gains by hiding the
> topology, and there's lots of complexity and pain related to this. I
> guess the idea with NAP draft though is that if some silly people
> insist on hiding their topology, then it should tell them how it can
> be done.
>
The point of this draft was that NAT and topology hiding are not useful for
security and NAP via native IPv6 can better handle the security issues. This
is why we do not offer work arounds that bring back NAT topology hiding into
IPv6.

Eric