While I agree that people will continue to use NAT even if we tell them not to, just like some people will continue to smoke even when public policy statements say that smoking is harmful, that does not mean that we shouldn't say that it's harmful. What's more productive than just saying that it's harmful is to be specific about what causes the most problems - and how to work around them - and I applaud this draft's effort at doing that. However, I think that a lot of the draft repeats RFC 4864. Therefore, I suggest the author look closely at RFC 4864, refer to it, and describe how this draft updates RFC 4864 with more recent information. Also, I think that Margaret's NAT66 draft is a specific embodiment of a sincere attempt to make a better NAT for IPv6. So I think this draft should refer to that effort and describe what Margaret got right and where her draft needs more work.
- Wes -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roger Marquis Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 12:00 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [nat66] Revision: Harmfulness Analysis of Address Translator Designs Christian Vogt wrote: > I would like to notify you about a revision of the NAT design analysis > that I had presented at the NAT66 BOF at IETF 74. The revision > addresses the feedback I had received, and adds the missing references > to the document. > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vogt-address-translation-harmfulness > Further comments are welcome. In the Acknowledgment section you forgot to mention the ILECs who no doubt sponsored this piece of rubbish. Those would be the same ILECs who will profit mightily from IPv4 address exhaustion, and who would like to also profit from non-portable and non-private addresses. Not to fear though. There is zero chance NAT will be any less popular in IPv6 than it is in IPv4. This is because the market demands NAT. That market is defined by those of us whose lives are greatly simplified by NAT i.e., about 95% of systems and network managers. Some of us were network managers before there was such a thing as NAT and you can bet we will not allow that to happen again. It will not happen because we will not purchase services or products that do not support NAT. Good the with your RFC, though I fear it will substantially limit your employability should you be imprudent enough to list it on your resume. Roger Marquis _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
