Randy Bush wrote:
as co-chair, i was really shy to scream at this, but since you opened the gate :)o this is just ula-c which has been killed in the ietf and died in every other rir o what if i need triple nat, shall we throw away another /8? o use ipv6!
I agree with Randy. prop-058 isn't solving the problem and isn't the best way forwards.
For IPv6 transitional space or service provider NAT, I would recommend (strongly) following the Class E draft through and allowing it to be used for this purpose. Alternatively, implement a decent NAT stack that allows for the same RFC1918 addresses on each side (BEHAVE working group).
I do not support prop-058. aj