On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 19:14, Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Eric, > > The problem here is that you assume that the IETF has decision power that > can magic away NAT66. Clearly it did not for NAT44 and will not for NAT66. > There is a diffrence between doing aways with NAT, allowing natural growth of NAT, and endorsing NAT. Of the 3 I only object to the 2nd one. So we either kill NAT so dead that it can not be brough back in any form or we find a way to meet the needs in a way that will not "break the internet" nor prevent new p2p applications. > The only way that the effort being expended to kill NAT66 makes any sense > is if the idea is to allow this type of argument to be rulled out of scope > as similar arguments were ruled out of scope when they were brought up in > existing protocols that simply do not work properly because the design was > intentionally made to be unfriendly to NAT. > > Agreed, but to do that we need a consensus - and that seems very hard to reach on this topic > If we recognize that there is no consensus that applications that are > not NAT66-agile will work in future then we should agree that the reasonable > default requirement for an apps WG should be that it should build a protocol > that is NAT66 tolerant. But I suspect that there will be severe pushback > against that. > > > Peter Dambier is right in this case, > > I would NAT66 my network for the simple reason that very few endpoint > devices actually tollerate a change in the IP address without at a minimum a > service interruption. Since I cannot guarantee that my IPv6 address from my > ISP will never change I am going to NAT66 my internal network for the sake > of having static numbering inside the network. > > The more infrequent you posit the need for renumbering is, the greater my > reluctance to allowing it will become. If you have a network event that > happens only once a year it is going to mean a very serious disruption when > it happens. DHCP only solves some of the problems, I am still effectively > forced to perform a reboot, I will lose connections and this will cost me > real time and money to fix. > > This goes back to the renumbering issue, and I agree it is a real and signifigant issue. But I am still not convienced that NAT is the only solution.
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
