On Mar 19, 2009, at 20:39, Lixia Zhang wrote:
We should have sent a FYI about this draft earlier. Comments are most welcome!
There are three places in the draft where the phrase "end-to-end reachability" is used when I would say that "end-to-end addressability" would make the point more clearly. Because IAB and IETF have well embraced the notion that policy enforcing stateful firewalls should be widely deployed in the Internet, we've long ago pitched out the notion that Internet nodes should be end-to-end reachable. The argument over NAT has always been about end-to-end addressability, not reachability.
One sentence in Section 1, Introduction:
People who are against standardizing IPv6 NAT argue that there is no fundamental need for IPv6 NAT, and that as IPv6 continues to roll out, the Internet should converge towards reinstallation of the end-to-end REACHABILITY which has been a key factor in the Internet's success.
Two sentences in Section 3, Architectural Considerations of IPv6 NAT:
IPv6 application developers in general should be able to program based on the assumption of end-to-end REACHABILITY, without having to address the issue of traversing NAT boxes.
...and...
If IPv6 NAT design can achieve this goal, then the Internet as a whole can strive for (re-installing) the end-to-end REACHABILITY model.
In fact, one could simply s/reachability/addressability/g on the whole draft, and problem solved, but it might be worth noting the distinction I'm drawing above between reachability and addressability in section 1 or section 2.
-- james woodyatt <[email protected]> member of technical staff, communications engineering _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
