Re: [nat66] NAT66 / IPv6 NAT and assumption of /48

[Rémi Després <[e-mail]>]

Keith Moore  -  le (m/j/a) 3/30/09 9:43 AM:
> As I tried to say in SF, we really need to decide which use cases of
> NAT66 are justified (from an engineering perspective) and make sure that
> the solution we develop in IETF actually addresses those cases.  Unless
> we do that, we run a real risk of (a) developing a solution to one or
> more non-problems, while (b) failing to develop solutions to bona fide
> problems, with (c) the unintended consequence of promoting wider use of
> NAT in IPv6 than is needed.
>   
Not only do I fully agree with this, but I worked on both problem 
analysis and solution design. The current result is in 
_draft-despres-sam-02_. (Sec. 2. is "NAT44 services that remain 
desirable in IPv6"; Sec. 5 is "Avoiding using NATs in IPv6 with SAM").

You should be interested in reading it, and I look forward to your 
reactions.

Note that this document was not presented at the 6AI BOF, despite its 
being cited as relevant by Dan Wing, for a reason given in the BOF charter:
 "This BOF will use IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Address Translation (NAT66) 
draft-mrw-behave-nat66-02.txt as the basis discussion of address 
independence for IPv6 solution. Other IPv6 address independence 
solutions will be considered if a working group is formed, but for the 
purpose of determining consensus to form a working group, only this 
solution will be in scope."

Regards,

RD