Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft

[Gert Doering <gert@space.net>]

Hi,

On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 11:18:51AM -0700, EricLKlein@softhome.net wrote:
> This is why we have RFC 4864, and the comment that the IETF does not 
> support NAT in IPv6. We need to find a way to make it crystal clear that 
> NAT is not part of v6 and using it will be non-standard. 

We have seen in IPv4 how well that approach works "close our eyes and
pretend that NAT is not going to happen".

I agree with those posts that said "NAT66 will appear, and the IETF should
make sure that it's done in a way that will have predictible effects on
applications".

As for the specifics: having 1:1 NAT without port rewriting, maybe even
just swapping the first /64 bits, is what should serve the purpose of
"I want to be able to change providers, on a whim, without renumbering
my internal network", while at the same time having fairly little impact
on applications.  

Regarding the "topology hiding" argument - well, people can use privacy 
extentions on their hosts, no?

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  128645

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279