Re: [v4v6interim] [46translation] [BEHAVE] Proposal for new BEHAVE charter

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 2008-10-18 11:42, Dan Wing wrote:
> Margaret Wasserman wrote:

...
>> (2) An explanation of how to do IPv6 <=> IPv6 NAT.  It am 
>> convinced that there are some people who will choose to do 
>> this for the same reasons that people with plenty of IPv4 
>> addresses choose to use IPv4 <=> IPv4 NATs today.  I think we 
>> could write a document that says something like:   IPv6
>> <=> IPv6 NATs are not really necessary, don't provide any concrete  
>> advantages that can't be obtained through less disruptive 
>> means, and are not recommended by the IETF, but if you are 
>> planning to do this anyway, please do it right (don't
>> include port translation, use algorithmic address mapping if 
>> possible, instead of state tables, etc.).
> 
> NAT44 has been a third rail (*) in the IETF for over a decade, 
> and NAT64 and NAT46 have only recently emerged as a way forward 
> to help with the eventual transition to IPv6.  
> 
> NAT66 is still a third rail.  I don't want to go there.

Yep. As Margaret well knows, RFC4864 was written to try to avoid
stepping on that rail, and includes a gap analysis of what's
needed to avoid it. I'd rather the IETF put effort into those
gaps.

    Brian
_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim