On 19 mrt 2009, at 7:43, Lixia Zhang wrote:
The draft did not take any position on 1:1 NAT; it simply stresses
the importance to strive for (re-installing) Internet's end-to-end
reachability model, if/when one designs IPv6 NAT.
Which I find strange. The ability to have 1:1 mappings, which are
orders of magnitude less harmful than 1:N mappings that we get in
IPv4, make a huge difference towards NAT in IPv6.
I have no problem with the conclusion that IPv6 NAT shouldn't happen,
but I'm not very happy with the draft in its current state. See below.
Also, let everyone realize that "IPv6 NAT shouldn't happen" is a much
stronger position than "we don't standardize IPv6 NAT". Under the no
IPv6 NAT regime, the IESG MUST make sure that no mechanisms are
published by the IETF that allow for nothing else than IPv6 NAT
traversal. Anything less than that is a de facto "we won't stop IPv6
NAT but we just don't want to bother standardizing it."
Are we ready to adopt the policy that forbids IPv6 NAT traversal
mechanisms?
The arguments for NAT are mostly bogus or fall within the "polkadot"
realm: if the paint shop starts selling paint that's pink with
fluorescent green polkadots, some person will paint their house with
that paint, no matter how ugly the results will be.
The renumbering and multihoming arguments are especially troublesome:
the hard part in multihoming isn't giving a host interface a new
address, but making sure that everything that points to that address,
from the DNS to firewall rules, is updated.
NAT does not offer ANY multihoming benefits whatsoever, in fact, NAT
breaks multihoming because after a rehoming event, the addresses are
translated differently.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf