Re: Follow-up work on NAT-PT

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On 10 nov 2007, at 19:09, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

> Softwires and usage of private IPv4 addresses, that was the reason  
> we worked
> on that !

> I'm not yet convinced anything else is needed.

You say that in response to:

> > If we just want to reuse old technology, the overlay can be built  
> > with simple
> > tunnels. Access routers routinely support protocols like PPPoA or  
> > PPPoE. PPP
> > over IPv6 (PPPo6?) would not be much of a stretch. It would also  
> > not look to
> > strange on the ISP side, since after all ISP are quite used to  
> > support PPP
> > servers.

This is an excellent approach if/when a host with only native IPv6  
connectivity needs full, unrestricted IPv4 connectivity, and this  
connectivity, along with the IPv4 address that goes with it, can  
reasonably made available.

The trouble with this approach is that it still requires IPv4 address  
provisioning, while the interesting aspect of NAT is that the address  
of the host behind the NAT is of no interest to anyone. So the IPv4  
provisioning step can easily be optimized away.