Subject: 6overNAT draft

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:23:02 -0500

Folks,

I've just submitted my first draft of "6 over NAT" to the 
Internet-Drafts folks, using the name draft-moore-6overNAT-00.txt.

Especially since it proposes a somewhat odd use of Neighbor Discovery
I would appreciate it if it were reviewed by members of this group
(whether formally by the group or informally by individuals)

folks who don't want to wait until it comes out via normal channels
may download it from 
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/draft-moore-6overNAT-00.txt

thanks!

Keith

Running IPv6 over a (potentially-NATted) IPv4 Network

Abstract

This document describes a protocol (dubbed "6overNAT") for deploying
IP version 6 over a network which supports IP version 4 but cannot
(yet) natively support IP version 6.  The target network may be
separated from the public Internet by one or more network address
translators (NATs), and the target network may itself contain NATs.
This protocol is intended to allow IPv6-capable hosts on the private
network to be assigned globally unique and routable IPv6 addresses,
and to allow those hosts to exchange traffic with IPv6 hosts on the
public IPv6 Internet (or given suitable connections, on other private
IPv6 networks), without intervening translation of IPv6 addresses.

It is intended that this protocol should allow almost any IPv4-capable
enterprise network to begin using IPv6 over that network for a small
marginal cost and with little effort.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 08:39:28 -0600

What patent and/or intellectual property rights
will ICANN and/or the ISOC be claiming based on this ?

 http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
1:20 ARIZONA

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-Arizona.com
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Keith Moore
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 2:23 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: 6overNAT draft

Folks,

thanks!

Keith

Abstract

---

From: "Paul Francis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:41:19 -0800

I've posted a draft on assigning random site-local identifiers at
http://www.aciri.org/francis/draft-francis-ipngwg-unique-site-local-00.txt.

This was submitted in time to make the Minn. ID deadline.

Thanks,

PF

Abstract

   For many or most sites, site-local addresses are used for packets
   between nodes within the site.  The fact that site-local addresses
   are not globally unique makes their usage and administration more
   difficult than they would be if there were globally unique (or
   nearly globally unique).  For instance, before two sites can be
   merged, one of them has to be renumbered.  The meaning of site-local
   addresses becomes ambiguous when they are taken out of the immediate
   context of the IPv6 layer, for instance when they are conveyed in
   email or stored in text files.

   All other things being equal, it would be preferable if the prefix
   of addresses with site-local scope were as globally unique as
   possible.  This draft expands the format of the site-local address
   to allow them to be near-unique.  It does not, however, change the
   definition or usage of the site-local address.  This draft describes
   the format and assignment method of near-unique site-local prefixes.
   It also outlines some usage scenarios.