Hi Eric,
I suspect that things have been quiet due to various holidays and post-
holiday torpor.
I am working on an updated NAT66 document to address the issues that
have been raised with the previous version. It is also likely to
contain a few unresolved issues, where there were multiple options
available and no clear consensus on which to follow. Once I get out
the new document, I expect that there will be further discussion.
I also hope that we will hold a BOF in San Francisco to discuss this
further. I will be submitting a preliminary BOF request, including a
draft charter for proposed work, to the Transport ADs by the
preliminary BOF request deadline (Monday, I think), and I will send it
to this list too (of course).
We have decisions to make on several levels.
1) Do we want to have a BOF in San Francisco to discuss this topic?
If so, what should be on the agenda?
2) Do we have consensus that work in this area should be done in the
IETF? This decision probably won't be made until after we have
additional list discussion and a BOF.
3) If we do charter work in this area, is the draft Fred and I have
written a good place to start? Or should we pursue a different
approach?
I'd invite discussion of any of these topics, or related topics, on
the list.
Margaret
On Jan 14, 2009, at 2:36 PM, Eric Klein wrote:
As there has been no discussion on the list for over a month, can
someone tell me where we stand on forming a census?
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 21:02, Margaret Wasserman
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I am sending this message to several large groups of people with
considerable overlap in an effort to reach everyone who has been
participating (actively or passively) in the NAT66 discussions.
PLEASE, PLEASE do not reply to this full list. Send any replies to
the new nat66 discussion list (cc:ed) or to me privately.
In response to concerns that have been raised about discussing IPv6-
to-IPv6 NAT on the behave WG mailing list, we have started a new
mailing list for the ongoing NAT66 discussion, [email protected]. The
purpose of this list is to discuss the needs that may drive the
adoption of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT, and to discuss solutions to meet those
needs, possibly including specification of an IPv6 NAT mechanism,
that will work better and be less harmful to the Internet than
direct ports of IPv4 NA(P)T functionality. Although we will see how
the conversation evolves in the upcoming weeks, our current
expectation is that we will hold a BOF at IETF 74 in San Francisco
to discuss this topic and to determine if there is consensus that
the IETF should pursue any work in this area.
It is not our intention that this new list will be used for discuss
of IPv4/IPv6 transition mechanisms, even those that involve
translation. Discussion of the v4v6translation work will remain in
the behave WG, where it is a chartered work item.
If you would like to join the nat66 mailing list list or read the
list archives, you can do so via the following URL:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
If you would like to actively contribute to the discussion, I would
suggest that you start by reading the following documents:
- RFC 4864: Local Network Protection for IPv6
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4864.txt?number=4864
- Renumbering still needs work
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-renum-needs-work-00.txt
- IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Address Translation (NAT66) -- now somewhat
out-of-date
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4864.txt?number=4864
- IETF 73 behave WG Presentation on NAT66 -- more up-to-date
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/slides/behave-14.pdf
Then, come join the discussion on the [email protected] mailing list.
Margaret
_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
