Iljitsch - You are right. Fail-over functionality for multi-homed networks suffers from a deployment problem because it requires support on both ends of a connection. We could conquer the deployment problem if we specified the fail-over functionality as part of NAT66, thereby piggybacking the deployment of the fail-over functionality to the deployment of NAT66.
In fact, in doing so, we would exploit vendors' desire for standard compliance to make them implement the fail-over functionality, and we would exploit operators' perceived benefits of NAT to make them deploy the functionality. Sounds like a reasonable deployment strategy. BTW, we did already discuss this idea on the BEHAVE list. Check this: http://www.nabble.com/Why-IETF-should-standardize-IPv6-NAT-to20290669.html#a20293096 In that thread, we considered that NAT66 is the same as the Unilateral mode of Six/One Router [1], and that we could augment NAT66 to support also Six/One Router's Bilateral mode. Having said this, I do believe that NAT66 should be standardized also for other reasons [2]. - Christian [1] http://users.piuha.net/chvogt/pub/2008/vogt-2008-six-one-router-design.pdf [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg04611.html _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
