On 2010-05-01 06:07, Chris Engel wrote:
...
> If there is a real desire to do something, people will do it
> regardless of what IETF wishes or pronounces. Did NAT in IPv4
> require an RFC before there were adoptions of it?
Yes. Two, actually.
RFC 1597 Address Allocation for Private Internets. March 1994.
(Status: INFORMATIONAL)
RFC 1631 The IP Network Address Translator (NAT). May 1994.
(Status: INFORMATIONAL)
That's exactly why we published something different for IPv6:
RFC 4864 Local Network Protection for IPv6. May 2007.
(Status: INFORMATIONAL)
and why, as has been mentioned, we are publishing
draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security.
I think there's a good chance that there will be NAT66 in
the market, but to minimise the damage, it needs to be
like draft-mrw-behave-nat66.
Brian
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
