On Fri, 5 May 2006 03:45:17 +0000, Brian Ginsbach <ginsbach@netbsd.org>
wrote:

> 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 <ginsbach@netbsd.org> 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