ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: NAT+PT for IPv6 Transition & Operator Feedback generally

2007-11-15 02:38:51
On 15 nov 2007, at 8:27, David Kessens wrote:

PS as my personal opinion on NAT-PT, as long as we define it as
  middlebox as opposed to a protocol that has strong interoperation
  needs, I am not convinced that it actually even needs to be
  standardized by IETF as it is perfectly possible to implement
  NAT-PT without a stable IETF specification and to make it work
  across the Internet.

We did that with NAT, and I think we lived to regret it.

In fact, I was thinking about adding text to my modified NAT-PT draft to mandate some specific NAT behavior rather than letting the vendors figure it out in order to make it easier for applications to work around the problems that the NAT part in NAT-PT creates.

I also believe we are moving towards a consensus that a NAT-PT like solution that purely exists in a middlebox is probably not workable for exactly the reasons that RFC 4966 explains so changes on either the IPv6 or IPv4 host that communicates through the NAT-PT translator are required.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>