Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw@lilacglade.org>]

On Nov 9, 2008, at 1:40 AM, EricLKlein@softhome.net wrote:
>  And for the occasional change (maximum of what 1 time per year?) I  
> do not think that breaking end-to-end links is the answer.
> If this is what they want then lets bring back site locals (I am  
> sure that some people will implement them and not notice that they  
> were depreciated anyway). This at least is a straight forward fix  
> that will not require bringing back NAT into v6.
[...Clip...]
> As I said above, Site locals are preferable to NAT or IPv6 PI, don't  
> break the end to end connectivity and don't undermine the security  
> benefits of a consistent address through out the link.

In what way would site locals resolve the renumbering problem?  How  
are they better than IPv4 RFC 1918  addresses for this purpose?  What  
difference do you see between IPv6 site local addresses and IPv6 ULAs  
that would make a difference here?

Margaret