[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: multihoming requirement and NAT64
- To: marcelo bagnulo <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
- Subject: Re: multihoming requirement and NAT64
- From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:53:35 +1300
- Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org, mcr@sandelman.ca
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=c4opmUrskHqgtDRCtd5Im351Qy2SaPk6cH8BH6Fno2WU+tzZvvcwl8hVKNT1FtttAF5dD/RkGIvN93Ann9s+mBK44eeF1Jcg/ET1mrgUXj2O2RdnQUcFGkH5auxHK7NeSZPsCVW3ZfIQSCxXVzXbOyxWRoKK36Vjj2CKOVEgQgc=
- In-reply-to: <47EA9812.8010202@it.uc3m.es>
- Organization: University of Auckland
- References: <47EA9812.8010202@it.uc3m.es>
- User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
On 2008-03-27 07:38, marcelo bagnulo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> during the v6ops meeting in Philadelphia, Michael brought up the issue
> about multihoming support for NAT64 boxes. As we know, current NAT boxes
> interact poorly with multihioming configurations. the question i guess
> whether we should impose some requirements of multihoming support for
> new NAT64 boxes.
I don't see how we can, since there is no single, agreed technique
for IPv6 multihoming, and I don't see why we would impose any constraint
to do better than regular v4 NAT on the v4 side.
It might be worth asking solutions to describe how they
interact with various multihoming techniques.
Brian