I am not ignoring them; I’m claiming that they all have the same inherent deployment and implementation limitations.
Just because operators/vendors “want” to do otherwise does not make it possible. Joe > On Aug 1, 2018, at 8:22 AM, Ole Troan <[email protected]> wrote: > > But only if you continue to ignore that there are other IPv4 sharing > mechanisms than NAT. > > Ole > >> On 1 Aug 2018, at 16:11, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> We all understand that many current NAT devices and their deployments are >> not compatible with IP fragmentation (v4 or v6). >> >> That leaves us with two options: >> 1. change IP, but that leaves us with problems for which we have no >> solution (encrypted payloads, other DPI devices that look further in, etc.) >> 2. change NATs and how they’re deployed (to require reassembly or its >> equivalent before processing, to not be deployed except where they can act >> as the host they proxy for) >> >> Both cost money and will have an impact. >> >> #2 involves changing less devices AND has the benefit that we know it will >> work. >> >> I see no good reason to continue to try #1 in the meantime. >> >> Joe > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
