Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The core assumption here seems to be that NAT is a bad thing so lets get rid of
NAT rather than trying to make NAT work.
NAT-PT is not NAT. It does a whole lot more, but it *cannot* do what it
claims to do completely, because the semantics on the two sides are
different, unlike NAT. Dual stack is a better way forwards for the
general case.
If you read carefully the draft suggests that there may be scenarios in
which a modified form of NAT-PT might be useful, so it is hardly extreme
NAT bashing.
3) Exactly why should an application be invited to care about this issue?
Because whether the packets pass through a NAT-PT or otherwise affects
what the application might expect from the network.
NAT does, for better or for worse, solve some real problems.
NAT-PT makes new problems: Not good news for a transition mechanism and
it militates against future improvements to IPv6.
/Elwyn
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf