Skip to main content

IPv6 Multihoming without Network Address Translation
RFC 7157

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:


From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Cc: RFC Editor <>,
    v6ops mailing list <>,
    v6ops chair <>
Subject: Document Action: 'IPv6 Multihoming without Network Address Translation' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat-04.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IPv6 Multihoming without Network Address Translation'
  (draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat-04.txt) as an
Informational RFC

This document is the product of the IPv6 Operations Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Ron Bonica and Dan Romascanu.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Ballot Text

   Technical Summary
  Network Address and Port Translation (NAPT) works well for conserving  
 global addresses and addressing multihoming requirements, because an
  IPv4 NAPT router implements three functions: source address  
 selection, next-hop resolution and optionally DNS resolution.  For
  IPv6 hosts one approach could be the use of IPv6 NAT.  However, NAT  
 should be avoided, if at all possible, to permit transparent host-to-  
 host connectivity.  In this document, we analyze the use cases of  
 multihoming.  We also describe functional requirements for  
 multihoming without the use of NAPT in IPv6 for hosts and small IPv6  
 networks that would otherwise be unable to meet minimum IPv6  
 allocation criteria.
   Working Group Summary
 This was originally posted in May 2010 discussed at IETF-78 in Maastricht, 
and reported on in IETF-79 at Beijing. The working group requested that it 
become a working group draft; it was originally posted as 
draft-ietf-v6ops-multihoming-without-nat66 in December 2010, and reposted 
as  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat in March 2011.
It has in essence been a requirement document feeding into 6MAN and MIF. 
Related work in those working groups has been proceeding to bring the issues 
to closure.
   Document Quality
 The document describes a network paradigm being used by certain networks 
in Japan, and describes the issues that prevent them from deployment. As such, 
its intent and result has been to focus action on the resolution of those problems.


Fred Baker is shepherd.

RFC Editor Note