Hi,
On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 04:20:42AM -0700, EricLKlein@softhome.net wrote:
> I have yet to hear one serious reason why we need NAT in v6 given that all
> of the requirements that lead to it and have kept it alive for years in v4
> do not exist in v6 and in some cases using it will break v6 functionality.
Well, the thing that I keep hearing is "we want to be able to change
providers at our whim and not renumber" (not from "SOHO" customers, but
from "a bit larger networks").
Two possible answers
- IPv6 PI space ("everybody's routing table gets hit")
- ULA space inside, NAT66 outside
so what's the smaller evil? I can't say.
(Regarding the "renumbering" bit: I didn't write "we can't renumber" -
but for a largish network, renumbering can incur much much higher costs
than just finding a vendor that provides a NAT66 box... and as soon as
enterprise customers are going to ask vendors about it, one of them will
build one. Well, I think you could already do that today with BSD
pf(4)...)
From an ISP point of view, I'd actually prefer NAT66 before IPv6 PI.
Of course "everyone of our customers will stay there forever, so there's
no need to ever renumber" would be much preferred, but I think this is
about as unrealistic as assuming that there won't be NAT66 boxes.
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
Attachment:
pgppSK5cYR6jG.pgp
Description: PGP signature