Hi Dave and Lixia,
I went through this document and it looks good. It provides a nice
balanced viewpoint on the issues. One thing I would like to be added
into the document is a cost-benefit analysis of doing ipv6 NAT for each
of the problems in section 2. e.g.
Avoid renumbering
Benefit: Don't have to renumber since it is hard...
Cost: Another box to manage, Application complexity, Traversal
infrastructure, Power consumption...
I am afraid that absent this analysis, we might be optimizing for the
worst case scenario and end up with a permanent box on the path.
Renumbering due to provider changes is a fairly rare phenomenon (for
some definition of rare) and every operator needs to perform this
analysis for themselves to see if NAT66 or some other solution would end
up being the better solution for them.
Thanks
Suresh
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf