Re: IPv6 NAT?

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com>]

On 15 feb 2008, at 20:43, Dan Wing wrote:

> Such 1-for-1 address rewriting does not provide the topology
> hiding that many people seem to like of their existing NAPT
> devices, nor does such 1-for-1 address rewriting obscure the
> number of hosts behind the NAT.  Such obscuring can be useful
> for certain businesses (there are, today, small ISPs in certain
> countries that do not want their country's PTT to know the
> ISP's actual market share, for fear tarrifs or advertising to
> compete with the small ISP will be increased).

So how far, exactly, are you prepared to bend over backwards and crack  
the spine of the IP architecture to accommodate 0.01% or so of its  
users? Not to mention the cost increases for all the extra protocol  
layers and debugging that must be borne by the other 99.99%?

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf