On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > Without being sure that I agree with you completely, Bill, I think > presenting a complete argument about these issues is very much > part of the architectural analysis that we need to back up > the final recommendation. We need an analysis for each of the > major classes of solution, and stateless NAT66 is one of them. > (NAT44 is hopelessly constrained by history and address space, > so doesn't seem to be a serious option anyway, IMHO.)
I don't believe the RRG should do this. My point, way back, was that the RRG should recommend that the IETF do this, as input to planning overall routing engineering. Lixia points out that NAT won't be everywhere, and that it will go away eventually (same as VA), but if it is in most places for the next 5 years that has an impact on how we chart the evolution of the routing and addressing architecture. The possible paths to the ultimate goal affect the ultimate goal, and whether we ever get there. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
