Subject: Re: How to use properly ipv6 autoconf over a router interface?
To: Hubert Feyrer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Brian Ginsbach <ginsbach@NetBSD.org>
Date: 05/05/2006 03:46:43
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:52:11PM +0200, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> 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.
I read this with a large grain of salt as I understand from one of
the authors there were a lot of IEFT politics involved... And this
sounds like a purely political statement.