[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Six/One Router Design Clarifications
On Jul 15, 2008, at 2:06 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-07-13 01:42, Christian Vogt wrote:
For communications between upgraded and legacy edge networks, address
rewriting happens unilaterally on the border of the upgraded edge
network. To avoid address inconsistencies between IP header and
payload also in this case, Six/One Router relies on application
functionality for network address translator traversal. Applications
that may be affected by such address inconsistencies depend on this
functionality already today, due to the existing deployment of
address translators. It is hence safe to assume that those
applications, which use addresses in packet payloads, also support
network address translator traversal.
I don't find this OK in an IPv6 environment. We've worked very hard
years to make sure that IPv6 deployment doesn't require NAT, and it
is not a correct assumption that applications can support NAT kludges
for IPv6 just because they must do so for IPv4 (including IPv6-IPv4
packet level translation).
it seems to me that a few issues need to be further sorted out here.
1/ what is the definition of "NAT" here in the context of IPv6?
I suppose it is a different one from v4 NAT that uses non-unique
2/ I wonder which position is being argued here regarding applications
that embed IP addresses inside. Independent from six/one router or
not, it seems to me that, whether one likes it or not, IPv6-IPv4
packet level translation is likely to be needed for some long time to
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg