Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables

[Brian E Carpenter]

It's our collective job to ensure that IPv6 doesn't
leave any of the motivations to do NAT intact. The
"hiding" motivation (aka address policy domains)
is bogus anyway, and has never been a valid reason for 
doing IPv4 NAT, so it's particularly hard to combat.

  Brian

Melinda Shore wrote:
> 
> > Well the message I got earlier was the IPv6 will not fix
> > the NAT problem - true or not true?
> 
> Well, it won't fix the NAT problem in scenarios
> where v6 is not deployed.  But aside from the
> other answers you've received so far, I've also
> heard several people mention the need to support
> something they call "address policy domains."
> I don't understand why they need it and I don't
> understand why an address policy domain couldn't
> be described as, say, 209.4.89.208/28 and I don't
> understand why it would *require* NAT, but it
> is something I've heard on several occasions.
> 
> Melinda