> -----Original Message----- > From: francis.dup...@fdupont.fr [mailto:francis.dup...@fdupont.fr] > Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 10:30 AM > To: Dan Wing > Cc: 'Eggert, Lars'; mohamed.boucad...@orange.com; 'Internet Area' > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Completion of working group last call for > draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-02 > > In your previous mail you wrote: > > > What analysis is missing from draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis > > to weigh the drawbacks of the 8 solutions. > > => there are two kinds of drawbacks: the technical drawbacks and the > not > technical drawbacks, e.g., the impact on privacy... Note because if the > second kind I am strongly against the 3.3 (if not changed into a SHOULD > NOT :-) and I suggested to "NOT RECOMMEND" all proposals perhaps at > the exception of one (i.e., leave one proposal without any > recommendation). > > Regards > > francis.dup...@fdupont.fr > > PS: IMHO only the not advertised port set makes sense, any other > proposal > deployed in countries where privacy is protected (any place in European > Union for instance) should make the ISP to be sued... > PPS: we can postpone the discussion to Berlin meeting (privacy concerns > are pushed in Germany clearly behind the sillyness point :-).
You keep saying "privacy", but without explaining the problem or how IPv4 address sharing makes privacy better or worse than IPv6. Without that, -d _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
