Re: [Softwires] Clarification of the stateles/stateful discussion

Thu, 04 Aug 2011 13:00:53 -0700 


On 8/4/11 8:04 AM, "Simon Perreault" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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).

This was discussed in BEHAVE many times. There is a subtle, but yet
important, difference between 'recommending EIM behavior' and having it 'on'
all the time. The current RFCs do not really dwell into that space.

Simon and I will be updating the bis draft to clarify (amongst other new
things) this issue.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-penno-behave-rfc4787-5382-5508-bis-00


> 
> Simon

_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires





























					Reply via email to