IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nat66] e2e [New Version Notification for draft-mrw-nat66-00]

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Wed, 27 October 2010 23:16 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Original-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ADF33A6405 for <nat66@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f6+yFX8NJr3G for <nat66@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from m1.imap-partners.net (m1.imap-partners.net [64.13.152.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53DF23A63D2 for <nat66@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 173-114-220-163.pools.spcsdns.net (173-114-220-163.pools.spcsdns.net [173.114.220.163]) by m1.imap-partners.net (MOS 4.1.8-GA) with ESMTP id CIE52305 (AUTH admin@network-heretics.com); Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:18:23 -0700
X-Mirapoint-Received-SPF: 173.114.220.163 173-114-220-163.pools.spcsdns.net <moore@network-heretics.com> 5 none
X-Mirapoint-Received-SPF: 173.114.220.163 173-114-220-163.pools.spcsdns.net <moore@network-heretics.com> 5 none
X-Mirapoint-Received-SPF: 173.114.220.163 173-114-220-163.pools.spcsdns.net <moore@network-heretics.com> 5 none
X-Mirapoint-Received-SPF: 173.114.220.163 173-114-220-163.pools.spcsdns.net <moore@network-heretics.com> 5 none
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <20101027205101.E405B2B2216@mx5.roble.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 19:15:40 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6617B30D-7A6D-4BE9-8C4E-540C40C81B71@network-heretics.com>
References: <F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB306BCC4419E@Skyhawk> <48C844A5-75A1-44D9-8757-3E25381BF687@network-heretics.com> <20101027133852.B57599@eboyr.pbz> <20101027205101.E405B2B2216@mx5.roble.com>
To: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: Margaret Wasserman <margaretw42@gmail.com>, "nat66@ietf.org" <nat66@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [nat66] e2e [New Version Notification for draft-mrw-nat66-00]
X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." <nat66.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66>, <mailto:nat66-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nat66>
List-Post: <mailto:nat66@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nat66-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66>, <mailto:nat66-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 23:16:41 -0000

On Oct 27, 2010, at 4:51 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:

>> In the real world we recognize that IPv6 is and will continue to go
>> nowhere until working NAT64 and NAT66 implementations are available.
>> That's not opinion but simple, objective, agenda-free observation.
> 
> Not to imply that there's no demand for stateless NAT in v6, there
> certainly is, but it is a small market niche compared to that of stateful
> NAT.

which is precisely why 

a) every NAT proposal (even those that do less harm than others) has to be treated with extreme skepticism.
b) if we're going to endorse NATs at all, we need a common mechanism to allow apps to deal with them that applies across all NATs.

Keith

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status