Remi,
On Feb 15, 2008, at 5:23 AM, Rémi Després wrote:
Dan York wrote :
I.e., either we assume no NAT in IPv6, or create a NAT standard.
Those
are the only sane options.
Just to be clear, that particular text was written by Iljitsch van
Beijnum, although I agree with him on it.
Somehow it can be both, but NOT at the same time :
In the IPv6-only world, to be reached at the end of the transition
period, NATs should IMO be prohibited.
I think we will have to respectfully disagree on this one. Count me
in the camp that says that NAT will *NEVER* go away as long as
corporate enterprises believe it is of value to them (as I noted in
my previous message). Even were we to somehow "prohibit" it,
enterprises would still do it... or our stance on prohibiting it
would simply be yet another barrier for them to seriously consider
moving to IPv6.
NAT is here. NAT is loved (by many). NAT will be with us until long
after we are all long gone.
The question is whether we standardize how NAT is done with IPv6 or
whether we just let the vendors go wild with it as they did for IPv4.
My 2 cents,
Dan
--
Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation dyork(_at_)voxeo(_dot_)com
Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com
Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com
Bring your web applications to the phone.
Find out how at http://evolution.voxeo.com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf