[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: apps people?



Leif Johansson wrote:
> Of course we filter - 

What is your requirement to do that? I am serious, because those are the
things the current draft is trying to document. If it is not covered by the
current text, please send details.

> but we don't NAT! 

I never said NAT was a good thing, in fact I keep pointing out we will have
NAT if we don't give people stable local space to work with. Local stability
is more important than breaking a few applications people aren't using yet.

> And luck has nothing 
> to do with 
> it. Would
> I like to be able to renumber and/or switch providers at the press of 
> the button?  Maybe. 

Some are more insistent about that ability.

> Do I wan't to pay the price of not beeing able to run 
> (say) sip 
> to the end-
> point? No way!

Good, we agree on something as a starting point. 

The limited range document is about identifying the requirements network
managers have which prevent flat global routing of every prefix. There is
nothing in there about requiring NAT. There is a suggestion that a parallel
effort be started to create a globally routed PI space, on the assumption
that some will try to pay to have the limited range addresses routed as a
proxy for the non-existent IPv6 PI. I personally think the IPv6 PI work
belongs in the IPv6 WG, but in the current political climate I can't see it
happening.

Tony


--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------