On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
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?"
There are several collection efforts going on - you might take a look at:
http://www.civil-tongue.net/clusterf
http://www.ipv6-to-standard.org/
http://ipv6.internet2.edu/
most of these are well advertised in the (Ran defined) Ops community.
- Lucy
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf