Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft

[Rémi Denis-Courmont <rdenis@simphalempin.com>]

Le samedi 8 novembre 2008 11:30:45 Gert Doering, vous avez écrit :
> 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?

That hides _identity_ not _topology_. Topology hiding is "messing up" your 
subnet prefixes.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
http://www.remlab.net/