[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Follow-up work on NAT-PT - a new approach
On 2007-11-09 11:03, John Curran wrote:
At 10:07 AM +1300 11/9/07, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
In any case, my analysis of RFC 4966 is that without
adding state in the IPv6 host, most of the problems identified
with NAT-PT cannot be mitigated. draft-carpenter-shanti-01
covers this in some detail.
Brian -
How does an ISP grow their network (using IPv6 to connect
customers) without some way to provide the minimal level
of backward compatibility to the existing IPv4-connected
Internet which is provided by NAT-PT?
I must confess that I've looked at the question much more from
the viewpoint of a campus or enterprise network, on the assumption
that ISPs only provide some combination of IPv4 and IPv6
transport. And there the answer for me has always been: upgrade
servers to dual stack, and install dual-stack application proxies
to fill any gaps.
I would envisage a similar approach for an ISP supporting
SOHO subscribers - that really isn't much different from
a campus network. The ISP will need dual-stack mail servers,
for example. Anyone providing services to the public will need
a dual stack, for that matter, if they want to be accessible.
However, for the residual cases, it's precisely because
of the issues with NAT-PT that I've just started working
on SHANTI. Whether that's of value is for the community
to say.
Brian