Keith Moore - le (m/j/a) 3/30/09 9:43 AM:
As I tried to say in SF, we really need to decide which use cases of
NAT66 are justified (from an engineering perspective) and make sure that
the solution we develop in IETF actually addresses those cases. Unless
we do that, we run a real risk of (a) developing a solution to one or
more non-problems, while (b) failing to develop solutions to bona fide
problems, with (c) the unintended consequence of promoting wider use of
NAT in IPv6 than is needed.
Not only do I fully agree with this, but I worked on both problem
analysis and solution design. The current result is in
_draft-despres-sam-02_. (Sec. 2. is "NAT44 services that remain
desirable in IPv6"; Sec. 5 is "Avoiding using NATs in IPv6 with SAM").
You should be interested in reading it, and I look forward to your
reactions.
Note that this document was not presented at the 6AI BOF, despite its
being cited as relevant by Dan Wing, for a reason given in the BOF charter:
"This BOF will use IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Address Translation (NAT66)
draft-mrw-behave-nat66-02.txt as the basis discussion of address
independence for IPv6 solution. Other IPv6 address independence
solutions will be considered if a working group is formed, but for the
purpose of determining consensus to form a working group, only this
solution will be in scope."
Regards,
RD
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
