Actually, what might be reasonable is for the next revision
of RFC 2460 to contain a list of header fields that are
mutable end to end (such as the hop limit and the traffic class)
plus a statement that all other header fields MUST be delivered
unchanged. Then a future version of node requirements can
cite this.

None of which will stop NAT salespersons. Only a more attractive
carrot than NAT will do that.

   Brian

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 
> John,
> 
> Yes, probably you're right. Let's then put it in another way (the positive one):
> 
> An IPv6 node (having forwarding capability for packets for what isn't the end 
> destination), MUST NOT translate the source or
> destination addresses.
> 
> We can add part of my previous text to explain this.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 4:17 PM
> Subject: RE: avoiding NAT with IPv6
> 
> > 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to