Subject: RE: Why?

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:47:35 -0800

> Terry Gray wrote:
> Keith,
> Quick note from the peanut gallery:  I believe your vision is
> only achievable if the address allocation policies for v6 are
> such that every man/woman/child and enterprise can obtain an
> "ample" amount of provider-independent v6 space (or some number
> of address bits that the enterprise can *own*). If people feel
> like they are held hostage to others for the operation of their
> internal enterprise (or home!) networks, you can take it to the
> bank that v6 NAT will become just as pervasive and entrenched
> as v4 NAT is.

This is precisely why I have stated earlier that v6 NAT is unavoidable:
'every man/woman/child and enterprise can obtain an "ample"
amount of provider-independent v6 space'

Catch is we don't know how to make this scalable. We have tried for 10
years and we still don't.

Michel.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:23:14 +0100

> years and we still don't.

Well, we could continue to rehearse these arguments for a while longer.
(Don't want to insult anybody, but I haven't seen anything in this
thread that I haven't seen many times before, including the absence
of scalable routing for PI space.)

Alternatively, people could contribute constructively to relevant
IETF activities

- behave, which is trying to codify NAT behavior such that NAT would
   become easier to deal with when we *have* to deal with it

- v6ops, and specifically draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-01.txt*, which
   is trying to show how to deploy IPv6 without any need for NAT

- shim6, which will define how to solve at least one of the problems
   in this area

*truth in advertising: I am a co-author of this draft.

     Brian