Hi Jordi, > 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 ...
Is this true, there are a number of RFCs that tell about the bad things NATs do, but NATs are not slowing down at all. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2993.txt?number=2993 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3027.txt?number=3027 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3424.txt?number=3424 > 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. A purely procedural problem exists - the above drafts are information, so I don't think they can be used as a justfication for use of MUST NOT in this document. Someone correct me if I am wrong. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
