[75281] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeroen Massar)
Wed Nov 10 09:54:16 2004
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
To: Michael.Dillon@radianz.com
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <OFA06F65B8.0AC93A5A-ON80256F48.003B673B-80256F48.005127E9@radianz.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:52:51 +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--=-ZbuYMA/MMDkZyJM5GTLS
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 14:46 +0000, Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
> > and do explain how a user coming in with their laptop and
> > dialing a provider is gonna be affected by your nat
>=20
> If IPv6 had "local scope" addresses, then NAT would not be
> necessary to prevent traffic from flowing through the
> unauthorized link. I know that the IETF has deprecated
> local scope addresses but I'm curious whether any of the
> router vendors currently support local scope addresses
> in their equipment.
"local scope" is back in the form of the ULA stuff.
Which takes away the problem of local scope which was merely RFC1918.
Routing vendors in general don't really care about those things.
Otherwise they would have long gone been pre-configuring rfc1918
filters and other want-to-haves per default, but they don't.
Remember that when there is a problem, somebody needs to be called
(and thus payed) for support. NAT is a nice money business...
"It doesn't work, let's call the expensive NAT guru"
Greets,
Jeroen
--=-ZbuYMA/MMDkZyJM5GTLS
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/
iD8DBQBBkitDKaooUjM+fCMRApA/AKChirsSGEqLyFpG4jcweFfi6aCTaACeLfa8
cxhnZdzzXjvoadswldaobCc=
=/tZZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-ZbuYMA/MMDkZyJM5GTLS--
