[75341] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Thu Nov 11 15:30:00 2004
In-Reply-To: <20041111200136.GA72482@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:29:02 -0500
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 11 Nov 2004, at 15:01, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 11:16:04AM -0800, Tony
> Hain wrote:
>> 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.
>
> It's not clear to me that having multiple addresses on every machine
> makes anything simpler or easier.
>
> In particular, if I'm multi-homed to two networks, the "IPv6 way"
> seems to have each box have an IP address on each network.
Rather than engage in another invigorating argument as to why the
original vision of v6 multihoming is flawed in practice, it may suffice
to say that these issues have been debated extensively in multi6, and
commenting on the (several) proposed solutions to the general
multi-homing problem on the multi6 list may be more productive than
re-hashing the reason for multi6's existence on the nanog list.
Joe
