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.

- Brian