On 2011-08-04 11:01, Cameron Byrne wrote: >> Yes, because these NATs are endpoint-dependent, which is forbidden by >> the BEHAVE RFCs. > > It is still very usefull and will be deployed regardless.
Right. But the IETF needs consistency in the advice it provides. > I understand you need to keep your documents consistent, but stretching > those ipv4 addresses further is a network and business reality of > today's big nat and future big nat. That's why there's a proposal floating around (no draft) that NATs MAY apply endpoint-dependent mapping to protocols that are known to not cause problems (e.g. HTTP and DNS). Simon -- DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
