(I have removed Roger's text, and am responding to Wes' note.)
While the draft has some overlap with RFC 4864, I think it would be a distraction to the community, and a distraction from the purpose of the draft, to get into an extended discussion of the pros and cons of RFC 4864. This draft does not so much update RFC 4864 as look at the issue from a somewhat different angle, although with similarities.
While this draft could be input to any discussion of updating Margaret's NAT66 draft (if such an update is needed), I would not expect to see such a focussed discussion here, as I understand the author's purpose.
Yours, Joel Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
