> I don't believe the RRG should do this. I could read that to mean "we should not present an analysis of the alternatives to support the recommendation". Am I misunderstanding what you mean by "this"?
Brian On 2009-11-12 09:19, Scott Brim wrote: > 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
