Subject: Re: How to use properly ipv6 autoconf over a router interface?
To: Brian Ginsbach <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Steven M. Bellovin <email@example.com>
Date: 05/05/2006 00:10:45
On Fri, 5 May 2006 03:45:17 +0000, Brian Ginsbach <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 05:44:58PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 May 2006 21:09:13 +0000, Brian Ginsbach <email@example.com> 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.
> I know it is NAT-like. Why the hangup with experimental? NAT
> isn't on the standards track either, its informational, and that
> hasn't stopped its wide spread adoption.
You've got the causality backwards. NATs proliferated despite the IETF;
the RFCs were to document what was out there. To be sure, the IETF is
philosophically opposed to NATs.
> My understanding from
> one of the RSIP authors is that it was made experimental so as to
> not be seen as an alternative to wide spread IPv6 adoption.
I don't think so. In fact, that was one of the benefits of RSIP; the IESG
was (and is) concerned about what happens if v6 fails to catch on. I'm not
worried about that at the moment, but it could still happen.
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb