On Thu, 4 May 2006, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>> Seems like RSIP (RFC 3102-3105) could work well here.
>>
> RSIP is a form of NAT.  It's cleaner and better than traditional NAT, but
> it is NAT-like.  Also note that the protocols are experimental, not
> standards track.  I don't think anyone has tried to use them with v6.

Indeed, the IESG note at the top of RFC 3102 looks scary enough not to go 
too near:

    The IESG notes that the set of documents describing the RSIP
    technology imply significant host and gateway changes for a complete
    implementation.  In addition, the floating of port numbers can cause
    problems for some applications, preventing an RSIP-enabled host from
    interoperating transparently with existing applications in some cases
    (e.g., IPsec).  Finally, there may be significant operational
    complexities associated with using RSIP.  Some of these and other
    complications are outlined in section 6 of RFC 3102, as well as in
    the Appendices of RFC 3104.  Accordingly, the costs and benefits of
    using RSIP should be carefully weighed against other means of
    relieving address shortage.


  - Hubert