From: Joris Dobbelsteen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: IPng WG (E-mail) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; NAT WG (E-mail)
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 8:27 AM
>Subject: (NAT) IPv6 and NAT
> I don't think NAT should be made obsolete or unneeded after
IPv6 has been
> deployed, but rather to be offered for some purposes on small
and home
> networks.
A couple of things:
1) I don't think that anybody is in the position
of being able to mandate NAT out of existence -
if service providers/network operators feel that
there's justification for continuing to translate
addresses, they will do just that
2) In voice services there's a requirement to be
able to hide calling party addresses on a policy
basis. NAT is one way to effect this (although
arguably not the best, given the numerous problems
it causes). A few people in the voice community
are claiming, however, that no terminal should
have a public IP address and that there should
be "address policy domains." I don't find their
arguments for it particularly compelling and I'm
not even going to try to represent them, but my
guess is that this is going to be an argument
we'll be having in a year or so.
At any rate, I think that point 1 above is the
salient one.
Melinda
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
