On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 07:32 +0200, Pekka Nikander wrote: [Good stuff about HIP snipped]
> Now, clearly it does not help (from the RRG point of view) if the > other end doesn't use HIP at all, and AFAIK that cannot be easily fixed. > But there the RG seems to be going some sort-of NATted (NAT66?) way anyway.... Do you mean RRG? I don't think there is any consensus to go towards NAT66. People in RRG Friday afternoon missed the NAT66 discussion in Behave. To make a long story short: IPv6 NAT is happening in the market. The only questions for the IETF (IMHO) is whether or not to write a specification for a more benign version (see draft-mrw-behave-nat66-01), and whether or not to progress work to mitigate the damage. Regards, // Steve _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
