I would prefer not to have the same discussion again and again in
multiple places. Let's just try and stick to behave for the moment,
though at some point if the work continues it would need to be passed
around elsewhere. We are not chartering the work one way or another at
the moment, for now this is merely "discussion" of the topic.
- Mark
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Eric,
According to the ADs and WG chairs, the correct forum for the NAT66
discussion is the BEHAVE WG. So, let's discuss it there.
Margaret
On Nov 12, 2008, at 9:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cross posted to several lists
Can we keep the NAT66 discussion to less than WGs at a time?
I am trying to keep up with multiple threads on this and trying to
explain that we do not have a valid requirement for NAT66 defined on
any of the mailing lists (v6OPS, BEHAVE, Softwires, RRG, and now v6).
Le's get this to one group (maybe we need a new mailing list just for
NAT66 discussions, but this is getting out of hand.
Until now the simple response is that "the IETF does not support NAT
in the v6 architecture." If this needs changing lets do it right with
proper gap analysis and needs assessment, and then seeing if there is
a solution (several have been proposed that are not NAT) or if we
need to create one, and if those fail then see about changing the
architecture of IPv6.
Eric _______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
