multiple prefixes

Doug Barton dougb at
Tue Feb 12 09:24:20 CET 2013

On 02/12/2013 12:17 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 11/02/2013 20:38, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 02/11/2013 12:31 PM, Tore Anderson wrote:
>>> * Doug Barton
>>>> PI is not a universal solution. There are myriad enterprises that
>>>> cannot, and/or do not want to deal with BGP.
>>> Running BGP isn't a requirement for using PI prefixes. There's no reason
>>> why your provider(s) can't originate your PI prefixes into the DFZ on
>>> your behalf. We do this for a couple of our customers without any issues.
>> I'm aware of that, but that's still not a universal solution, even if
>> the [RL]IRs would hand out the allocation.
>> ULA + NPTv6 addresses the situation nicely, without the problems
>> associated with NAT,
> It beats me how you can avoid the need for an ALG for FTP, for example.
> See page 6 of RFC 6296.

That has nothing to do with NPTv6, that's a firewall issue. And passive 
mode has existed for well over a decade to deal with the firewall issue.

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list