Eric,
The problem here is that you assume that the IETF has decision power that can
magic away NAT66. Clearly it did not for NAT44 and will not for NAT66.
So the real question for App designers is:
1) Should they design protocols that assume no NAT66
2) Should they regard the assumption that there is no NAT6 as a design fault
that may lead to lack of interoperability.
The only way that the effort being expended to kill NAT66 makes any sense is if
the idea is to allow this type of argument to be rulled out of scope as similar
arguments were ruled out of scope when they were brought up in existing
protocols that simply do not work properly because the design was intentionally
made to be unfriendly to NAT.
If we recognize that there is no consensus that applications that are not
NAT66-agile will work in future then we should agree that the reasonable
default requirement for an apps WG should be that it should build a protocol
that is NAT66 tolerant. But I suspect that there will be severe pushback
against that.
Peter Dambier is right in this case,
I would NAT66 my network for the simple reason that very few endpoint devices
actually tollerate a change in the IP address without at a minimum a service
interruption. Since I cannot guarantee that my IPv6 address from my ISP will
never change I am going to NAT66 my internal network for the sake of having
static numbering inside the network.
The more infrequent you posit the need for renumbering is, the greater my
reluctance to allowing it will become. If you have a network event that happens
only once a year it is going to mean a very serious disruption when it happens.
DHCP only solves some of the problems, I am still effectively forced to perform
a reboot, I will lose connections and this will cost me real time and money to
fix.
________________________________
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org on behalf of Eric Klein
Sent: Mon 11/24/2008 5:56 AM
To: Fred Baker
Cc: IAB; behave(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org WG; IETF Discussion;
alh-ietf(_at_)tndh(_dot_)net; IESG IESG
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to
applicationdevelopers
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