multiple prefixes

[Brian E Carpenter]

On 12/02/2013 08:24, Doug Barton wrote:
> 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. 

Huh? How does the PORT command work across NPTv6?

As others have said, there's a whole subset of the NAPT issues
that still apply to NPTv6. There will be corporates that want to
stick to IPv4 practices with IPv6, and some of them will go for
NPTv6, but eventually we will get viable multi-address based
multihoming instead. There's definitely no one-size-fits all
solution.

    Brian

> And passive
> mode has existed for well over a decade to deal with the firewall issue.
> 
>