I don't think this makes much sense. The node requirements doc is the wrong place to introduce new requirements. More importantly there's no way to enforce this in conformance testing. I understand the sentiment, but this is the wrong solution.
Mat. > -----Original Message----- > From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 17 July 2003 11:25 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: avoiding NAT with IPv6 > > > Hi John, > > I know this is a difficult topic, and we don't enforce the > vendors, but we do "de facto". > > I mean, if a vendor don't pass a given RFC in a > conformance/interoperability, because they do NAT, then a lot > of customers (ISPs, > Telcos) will not purchase it, because that's what the market > do most of the time. And this is a "market" enforcement ... > > What about something like: > > IPv6 has enough addressing space that allows avoid the need > of any kind of address translation, that is considered > harmful according > [RFCxxxx]. Consequently, IPv6 nodes MUST NOT support any kind > of address translation. > > Regards, > Jordi > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 11:11 AM > Subject: RE: avoiding NAT with IPv6 > > > 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 > > ***************************** > Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit > Presentations and videos on-line at: > http://www.ipv6-es.com > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
