Hi Chris As one of the co-authors of RFC 4864 I would be interested if you could itemize that you mean by:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 18:45, Chris Engel <[email protected]> wrote: > James, > > > > From my standpoint that is a vain hope.....for many of us down here in the > trenches NAT is just too useful. There will be a demand for it and vendors > will heed that call eventually. Hopefully sooner rather then later, as a > lack of such solutions will help slow down the adoption of IPv6 itself to > some degree, but that is a digression > > I agree that there will be demand, and that vendors will feed this demand (in many cases may cause it), but unless there is a specific need not addressed with a better, more scalable solution then it is still not clear what you want NAT for. > My point here is that it would be better for IETF to publish some standard > for NAT66 so that at least there can be better predictability about how > particular implementations of it will function for those technologies that > will interact with it. I would think that would be a far better outcome then > not publishing a standard at all. > > > Including what functionality? Be specific. > As an aside, I made some specific criticisms in reference to RFC 4864. I > applaud the work and the effort that went into that document. However, I > found it weak in a couple areas when addressing the real utility NAT has for > certain functions. I'm not sure that there is any effective substitute for > that functionality in IPv6 without NAT...but I'd rather see the document > recognize that fact rather then attempt to gloss it over. Perhaps the > authors may consider revisiting it. > > If you can point to specific places you would like updates it may be considered. Eric <http://www.google.com/search?q=%0D%0A%0D%0A%20%20%20%20Christopher%20Engel%0D%0A%0D%0A%20%20%20%20%20>
_______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
