On Nov 24, 2008, at 5:56 AM, Eric Klein wrote:
We need a team made up of both sides to sit down, spell out what are
the functions of NAT (using v4 as a basis) and then to see if:
1. If they are still relevant (like number shortage from v4 is not
the same issue under v6 for example)
2. Do they already exist in v6 without adding NAT
This was already done, and the results are in RFC 4864.
Then we need to check:
1. Is there is a solution by using NAT
2. Is there is a better solution than using NAT
#2 was done in the gap analysis section of RFC 4864.
I'm not sure what you mean by #1, because if you start with a list of
the functions of NAT, the fact that NAT can be used for those
functions just follows, doesn't it?
Only then can we make a proper and informed decission on what is
needed and what is unneeded legacy.
I think we are ready to do this, based on the information in RFC
4864. Do you see anything missing from 4864 that needs to be analyzed
further? If so, could you send specific points, and perhaps we can
consider an update?
Margaret
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf