|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
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
|