1 / 5

IPv6 Multihoming without Network Address Translation

This draft presents a method for small sites to achieve multihoming in IPv6 without requiring PI address or BGP, maintaining end-to-end transparency. It addresses security concerns examined in RFC4218, sharing threats present in IPv6 multihoming solutions. The revision clarifies the concept of multihoming and emphasizes the goal to provide a non-BGP multihoming approach. Feedback from the 1st WGLC led to the removal of "NAT66" from the title, reflecting a generic approach that does not rely on a specific NAT mechanism. Future steps include further verifications via another WGLC round.

edwardjones
Download Presentation

IPv6 Multihoming without Network Address Translation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IPv6 Multihoming without Network Address Translation draft-ietf-v6ops-multihoming-without-ipv6nat-00

  2. 1st WGLC ended. • Thank you for many feedbacks. • We’ve just submitted a renamed revision, titled draft-ietf-v6ops-multihoming-without-ipv6nat-00 • “NAT66” was removed from the title, because it does not assume any specific mechanism of NAT. • This revision hopefully addressed all of the issues pointed out during WGLC.

  3. definition of “multihoming” • Not a few people misinterpreted “multihoming” in this document, and assumed BGP way of multihoming. • The goal of this document is to provide a multihoming method for a small site that cannot deal with PI address or BGP operation, and without breaking end-to-end transparency of IPv6. • Which was clarified in intro. and elsewhere.

  4. security consideration was expanded • RFC4218 examines threats that are inherent to all IPv6 multihoming solutions, especially not routing(BGP) based ones. • So, this document shares most of the threats studies in RFC 4218. • Additionally, some possible threats are described that may be introduced by policy providing approaches.

  5. 2nd WGLC ? • About next step • Another round of WGLC ? • Just the verifications from people who gave us feedbacks ?

More Related