Hi Jordi, > If we include, for example, in the node-requirements, that > one of the IPv6 node requirements is to "avoid" the support of NAT or any > other kind of address translation mechanism (I'm not > suggesting exactly this way to say it), any vendor that do that, can be > "banned" by the community and the Interop/Conformance test, > because he is not complying with the specs. > > Some still will do that, but we can then tell the network > managers and users, that the product is NOT IETF complaint.
I feel ambigious about this - avoiding NATs is a good thing, however IETF is not a protocol enforcement agency. Interop & conformance testing happens outside of the IETF, so I am not sure this is in scope for the IETF. Additionally, the WG chairs chartered the Node Requirements work to document existing requirements, and I actually don't think we have any IPv6 RFCs that have any related statements like 'You MUST NOT NAT IPv6' ... so I am unsure how to procede on this subject. That noted, there are well known RFCs published already on the dangers of NATing, so I'm not sure what good it would do to put something in the Node Requirements document. Finally, I actually don't know what a reasonable requirement would be to add to cover this. If you think you have good text, please send it on the mailing list. John -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
