Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested

Wed Nov 10 14:52:51 UTC 2004

On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 14:46 +0000, Michael.Dillon at 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
> 
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20041110/e77a69ea/attachment.sig>