I-D Action:draft-azinger-scalable-addressing-00.txt

[Fred Baker]

On Sep 26, 2010, at 1:26 PM, S.P.Zeidler wrote:

> If I could get the wish fairy to attend, I'd get RFC1493 addresses
> internally, and a stateless prefix NAT of whatever kind by the
> firewalls that lets the firewalls make sure that routing works as
> it should. (ILNP sounds fine but has the drawback that it only allows
> locator changes when the responder does ILNP too).

1493 is managed objects for bridges. Do you mean ULAs (RFC 4193)?

So - you would be in favor of something like http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mrw-behave-nat66

That particular model has a down side, in that to make the checksums work end to end we update the prefix or the EID, which makes session switchover less seamless. But it requires no change to the host.