Subject: Site Local == Network Address Translation?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:14:09 -0800 (PST)

Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Since we have established that site-locals will encourage the use of NATs
> ('cause that's how it's done today)

Certainly a lot of people have tried to advance this proposition, but it
seems dubious to me.  Site local addresses will neither encourage nor
discourage network address translation.  And if you're going to cite
the renumbering scenario to support this idea, I suggest that you are
merely illumainating problems with renumbering, not site locals.
-- George Mitchell

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 18:15:50 -0800

> merely illumainating problems with renumbering, not site locals.

Well, both to be fair.  People will use site-locals if available in 
order to isolate them from having to renumber their infrastructure.  Of 
this I'm convinced.  My answer has been to work on improving the tools 
in this space to reduce the pain, rather than advance a mechanism that 
we know to have the identical limitations of IPv4.

Eliot

---

From: Aidan Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 11:48:34 +1000

>>('cause that's how it's done today)

I really struggle to see why people would use an
IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT -- there just doesn't seem to be
any incentive.

If you wanted to deploy a NAT, surely you would pick
an IPv4-to-IPv4 NAT and use IPv4 address space.
The v4 "technology" is way more "mature" than the IPv6
equivalent, and that's how it is done today.

- aidan