Jari, On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:38, Jari Arkko <[email protected]> wrote:
> Eric, > > The original threads that lead to this list being created all came down to >> the basic Boolean question: >> Do we in the IETF want to allow NAT66 at all in IPv6 even though IPv6 was >> originally designed not to allow it? >> > > I think we need to spend time on why we might want to do this, and what the > alternative approaches might be. > > As phrased above the discussion has the danger of becoming a religious > debate. Lets do the work to analyze what needs we have, how those can be > fulfilled, and whether NAT66 fits in. I guess I'm agreeing with Remi here... > I agree that this very quickly turned into a religious debate on multiple mailing lists. This is why this list was created. That said, for the past 4-5 months I have been proposing just what you are suggesting: a proper analysis of what 1) was under the heading of NAT in the old v4 world, and 2) what we need in v6. Once we have this analysis done we can see if there is a gap between the need (#2) and the reality of existing v6. We will also be able to see what is needed so we can meet the perceived needs vs the technical ones. But it appears that we have too much emphasis on rushing to the how before we understand the why and the what. Eric
_______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
