On 14 nov 2007, at 14:19, RJ Atkinson wrote:
There is an opportunity in all of this mess for some folks
to initiate work to develop a replacement RFC for NAT+PT. As near as
I can tell, operators aren't particularly worried whether that RFC
is on the standards-track or not, but they do want to have an open
specification for the function.
Please note that Brian Carpenter recently wrote a draft with a new
take on NAT+PT:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-shanti-01.txt
Alain Durand's draft suggests an IPv4(public)-IPv6-IPv4(private)
mechanism:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-durand-v6ops-natv4v6v4-00.txt
And I wrote a draft proposing several modifications/additions to
existing NAT-PT:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-van-beijnum-modified-nat-pt-00.txt
There was a lively discussion on this topic on the v6ops list that
immediately stopped when I posted my draft... Margaret Wasserman
brought up:
"Exactly what types of operational problems exist that we need to
solve? Why aren't the existing v4/v6 transition mechanisms sufficient
to resolve those problems? Where are the gaps that needs to be filled?"
It would be good to have answers to those questions from the
operational community along with the signal that NAT±PT is required.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf