Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft

[EricLKlein@softhome.net]

Margaret Wasserman writes: 

> 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? 
Perception of what they are for and how they work is different. Otherwise 
they are just as bad as NAT - this is why they were created and then 
depreciated. 

We need a better understanding of the real needs (not just those of "I have 
v4 NAT and want v6 NAT") and then see what the solution is to the actual 
need. Otherwise we are taking a solution and looking for a problem.