Subject: RE: myth of the great transition

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:40:09 -0700

Simon,

> Simon Woodside wrote:
> Is it (or could it be) possible to make an equally workable
> {{{{{local address isolation system}}}}}, at a low price, that
> doesn't introduce the drawbacks of NAPT.

If you are talking about the actual hardware, yes. It already exists,
just a matter of how it is marketed. But this is not the issue; the
issue is providing users with something good enough to replace NAPT,
which is 1) portable identifiers or addresses "owned" by the user
(because renumbering is a pain) and 2) a scalable way to route all of
these.

Michel.

---

From: S Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:54:00 -0400

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
> Date: Thu Jun 19, 2003  8:43:18  PM America/Montreal
> To: S Woodside <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: myth of the great transition
>
>> OK, so let's say I'm the author of a voice over IP application on a
>> platform that supports IPv6, like, say, Mac OS X. What part of IPv6 is
>> going to make this work. I would need NAPT-replacement box to support
>> IPv6 as well, right? It would assign an IPv6 address to each of the
>> inner systems, and then ... what? I guess my caller who's trying to
>> phone me, I give her my IPv6 address. She connects to that address, 
>> and
>> her magic box sets up an IPv6 tunnel to my magic box automatically.
>> Then my magic box forwards the packets to the right machine in my
>> network.
>>
>> Add a firewall to that, and you've got something that replaces NAPT.
>>
>> I'm thinking maybe you could keep IPv4 NAPT as a legacy feature for
>> inside hosts and applications that don't support IPv6 yet. But apps
>> that do support IPv6, would not have to do any work to traverse the
>> NAPT.
>
> you've just described my router at home, I think.  except that there's 
> really
> no overhead in setting up a tunnel to your magic box - the sending 
> router
> just encapsulates the IPv6 packet within an IPv4 packet and sends it.
> there's no negotiation or per-tunnel state required.
>
> and yes, it does have NAPT as a legacy feature - I use it for web 
> browsing and
> reading email.
>
>

--
www.simonwoodside.com -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel