On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Fred Baker <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Nov 21, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
The discussion today in Behave shows there is very strong peer-pressure
group-think with no serious analysis of the long term implications about
what is being discussed.
Yes, there is a very clear anti-NAT religion that drives a lot of thought.
It's not clear that any other opinion is tolerated.
Fred,
I pesonally would be open to a real discussion about the needs and then
about the solution. But for now NAT has taken on religious connotations with
those who are for it being as single minded as those who are against it.
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
Then we need to check:
1. Is there is a solution by using NAT
2. Is there is a better solution than using NAT
Only then can we make a proper and informed decission on what is needed and
what is unneeded legacy.
Eric
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf