[75334] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Hain)
Thu Nov 11 14:18:04 2004
From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
To: "'Randy Bush'" <randy@psg.com>,
"'Nils Ketelsen'" <nils.ketelsen@kuehne-nagel.com>
Cc: <nanog@Merit.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 11:16:04 -0800
In-reply-to: <16787.41202.726158.876735@ran.psg.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Randy Bush wrote:
> > 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?
The existence of the address space does not require nat. Being stuck in the
mindset where there is only one address on an interface leads people to
believe that nat is an automatic result local addresses. Assigning a local
prefix for local purposes (like a printer or lightswitch) at the same time
as a global prefix for those things that need to reach the Internet does not
require nat.
Tony
