[75322] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Bush)
Thu Nov 11 12:27:47 2004
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:27:14 -0800
To: Nils Ketelsen <nils.ketelsen@kuehne-nagel.com>
Cc: nanog@Merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> I see this a lot recently: You are mixing up RfC1918 and NAT.
>
> If I have globally unique addresses I can NAT them as well
> as 10/8. One has nothing to do with the other.
>
> Having to NAT RfC1918 addresses to reach the internet, does not imply
> that I have to have RfC1918 to be able to do NAT.
but having 1918, site-loco, whatever, and wanting to reach the
internet REQUIRES nat. we'll love it in ipv6; can't let things
be too simple, eh?
randy
