On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 19:14, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
The problem here is that you assume that the IETF has decision power that
can magic away NAT66. Clearly it did not for NAT44 and will not for NAT66.
There is a diffrence between doing aways with NAT, allowing natural growth
of NAT, and endorsing NAT. Of the 3 I only object to the 2nd one. So we
either kill NAT so dead that it can not be brough back in any form or we
find a way to meet the needs in a way that will not "break the internet" nor
prevent new p2p applications.
The only way that the effort being expended to kill NAT66 makes any sense
is if the idea is to allow this type of argument to be rulled out of scope
as similar arguments were ruled out of scope when they were brought up in
existing protocols that simply do not work properly because the design was
intentionally made to be unfriendly to NAT.
Agreed, but to do that we need a consensus - and that seems very hard to
reach on this topic
If we recognize that there is no consensus that applications that are
not NAT66-agile will work in future then we should agree that the reasonable
default requirement for an apps WG should be that it should build a protocol
that is NAT66 tolerant. But I suspect that there will be severe pushback
Peter Dambier is right in this case,
I would NAT66 my network for the simple reason that very few endpoint
devices actually tollerate a change in the IP address without at a minimum a
service interruption. Since I cannot guarantee that my IPv6 address from my
ISP will never change I am going to NAT66 my internal network for the sake
of having static numbering inside the network.
The more infrequent you posit the need for renumbering is, the greater my
reluctance to allowing it will become. If you have a network event that
happens only once a year it is going to mean a very serious disruption when
it happens. DHCP only solves some of the problems, I am still effectively
forced to perform a reboot, I will lose connections and this will cost me
real time and money to fix.
This goes back to the renumbering issue, and I agree it is a real and
signifigant issue. But I am still not convienced that NAT is the only
Ietf mailing list