Subject: (ngtrans) Reply to Erik Nordmark on SIIT and Shipworm

From: "Michael Cole" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 3:12:56 -0400

I did indeed read RFC 2765. Some address formats are confusing. 
0::FFFF:0:a.b.c.d and 0::FFFF:a.b.c.d look too similar for some peoples' 
comfort.

What I said about not changing the checksum is that SIIT has too many 
features that are like a straightjacket. Some other people have the same 
complaint. SIIT is useless to a cable ISP who is stuck with using a NAT box and 
assigning RFC 1918 addresses to their customers. Some cable ISPs have admitted 
to this. This is one good reason why we need to get Shipworm and Isatap nailed 
down soon. The reason why cable ISPs prohibit connection sharing is that they 
are afraid of their NAT clogging up or that double NATting would crash 
something.

Internet Service Providers have a considerable investment in IPv4 equipment 
and the same goes for LANs. Even if every ISP and web site is connected to the 
6bone there is still the problem that there will be IPv4 links in between the 
ISP and their subscribers. Same goes for wireless portions of LANs.

--- Michael Cole

--- [email-masked] 

--- EarthLink: It's your Internet.