On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 10:45:25AM -0800, Christian Huitema wrote: > > If we are serious about NAT != SL, then we should enforce it.
Well, I find this attitude (it's widespread on this list) bizarre ... if SLAs =/=> NAT (SLAs do not cause NAT) then we don't need to worry about it. > Suppose for example that we change our spec to forbid any communication > between addresses of different scopes. ... but that sounds fair enough to me. Scopes are scopes. Your return address has to be in scope at the destination. > This simple suggestion will in fact prevent using SL in the NAT > scenario, It will prevent _Standards Compliant_ client implementations from using NAT, but as we both know many vendors loosely interpret standards in any case. -- Nick 'Sharkey' Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://zoic.org/sharkey> "If you can keep your cynicism when all around are losing theirs..." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
