[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-02.txt
- To: "'Eric Klein'" <ericlklein@softhome.net>, "'Christian Huitema'" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>, "'David Conrad'" <david.conrad@icann.org>, "'Fred Baker'" <fred@cisco.com>
- Subject: RE: Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-02.txt
- From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 08:45:59 -0700
- Cc: "'Thomas Narten'" <narten@us.ibm.com>, "'Jim Bound'" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>, "'Brian E Carpenter'" <brc@zurich.ibm.com>, <gunter@cisco.com>, "'Ralph Droms'" <rdroms@cisco.com>, <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, "'Lindqvist Erik Kurt'" <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>, "'Margaret Wasserman'" <margaret@thingmagic.com>
- In-reply-to: <003901c68567$3d03e930$6402a8c0@ftssoft.com>
Eric Klein wrote:
> I appreciate this effort for mathmaticial accuracy, but I think we have
> lost
> sight of the originl issue:
> How many is not an issue in this draft, but the fact that IPv6 < >
> infinate
> pool numbers and NAT is not the solution recommended for this reality.
Responding to those who believe that cascaded NAT provides an even greater
amount of space than IPv6 I have added the following in the middle of the
second paragraph of 2.6:
... This happens even though the private use address-space is strictly
limited in size. Some deployments have already outgrown that space and have
begun cascading NAT to continue expanding. Unfortunately, the number of and
types of applications that can be deployed by these ISPs and their customers
is restricted by the ability to overload the port range on the public side
of the most public NAT in the path. The result is something substantially
less than 2^48 possible active application endpoints, rather than the
perception of arbitrary utility from the large number of addressable
devices. In addition it is highly likely that nodes will become confused
because they are not topology aware, though as already mentioned NAT
enforces a specific application deployment model. ...
Tony