On Nov 2, 2009, at 15:25, Chris Engel wrote:
[...] However, just because NAT isn't a very good tool for SOME
situations doesn't mean we should take it out of the tool box when
it's still a perfectly good tool for MANY situations (which it IS).
[...]
I'm having trouble identifying your basic concern.
Are you under the mistaken impression that IETF has any power to stop
you from deploying IPv6/NAT in your networks? That concern should be
easily dispatched with just a moment of contemplation. The IETF does
not have the keys to your toolbox. Stop worrying about the Internet
cops; they are not the jack-booted authoritarians you might be
imagining them to be.
Are you instead under the mistaken impression that IPv6/NAT equipment
will not be available to you unless IETF publishes a standards
document for NAT66? That would be a pretty strange concern coming
from somebody who seems quite satisfied already with the available
IPv4/NAT equipment on the market, despite the fact that there is no
standards document for which their behavior is expected to conform.
What is it, in particular, that you wish for the IETF to do, and why
do you believe the IETF should be the ones to do it? (I recommend
reviewing the archives of this list to see if your concerns have
already been discussed before attempting to supplement the discussion
with additional argument.)
--
james woodyatt <[email protected]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
