|
Re: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?
2008-11-13 09:11:35
Eric Klein wrote:
Mark,
I agree with the sentiment, the problem is that the 5 different groups
are doing different things that all relate back to NAT in v6 (rather
than just coexistence) each under their own charter.
I have had suggestions that I bring this to ietf or inter-area mailing
lists for general consensus on a need and IETF overall position prior
to defining a solution.
Behave seems a little limited in scope for the decision about do we or
don't we want to allow any form of native mode NAT into v6.
I agree, and it is not behave's place to make that decision at this
time. I had originally proposed that this be discussed in int-area (if
nothing else because behave's plate is rather full), but some folks
pointed out that some modes may have affects on applications and that
behave was best able to determine that, particularly within context of
the other NATxy work. I'm looking forward to that assessment. So for now
this should remain discussion to understand the problem space and
potential solution space better, not a final referendum on whether or
not the IETF is going to charter work in or otherwise endorse NAT66 in
any manner.
Thanks,
- Mark
Eric
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Mark Townsley <townsley(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com
<mailto:townsley(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>> wrote:
I would prefer not to have the same discussion again and again in
multiple places. Let's just try and stick to behave for the
moment, though at some point if the work continues it would need
to be passed around elsewhere. We are not chartering the work one
way or another at the moment, for now this is merely "discussion"
of the topic.
- Mark
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Eric,
According to the ADs and WG chairs, the correct forum for the
NAT66 discussion is the BEHAVE WG. So, let's discuss it there.
Margaret
On Nov 12, 2008, at 9:44 AM, EricLKlein(_at_)softhome(_dot_)net
<mailto:EricLKlein(_at_)softhome(_dot_)net> wrote:
Cross posted to several lists
Can we keep the NAT66 discussion to less than WGs at a time?
I am trying to keep up with multiple threads on this and
trying to explain that we do not have a valid requirement
for NAT66 defined on any of the mailing lists (v6OPS,
BEHAVE, Softwires, RRG, and now v6).
Le's get this to one group (maybe we need a new mailing
list just for NAT66 discussions, but this is getting out
of hand.
Until now the simple response is that "the IETF does not
support NAT in the v6 architecture." If this needs
changing lets do it right with proper gap analysis and
needs assessment, and then seeing if there is a solution
(several have been proposed that are not NAT) or if we
need to create one, and if those fail then see about
changing the architecture of IPv6.
Eric _______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
Behave(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:Behave(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
Behave(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:Behave(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
Behave(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:Behave(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
Behave(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|
|