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

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <[e-mail]>]

On 19 okt 2008, at 22:45, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>> 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.

I talked about IPv6 NAT a bit in the shim6 meeting in Philly:

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/slides/shim6-2.pdf

However, I didn't get ANY feedback on that (nor the issue of next  
steps for shim6 which the presentation was about), same thing when I  
mentioned IPv6 NAT a few other times.

Interestingly, I did a small survey about whether people _expect_  
there to be NAT66 in the future and the majority said "yes".

On the one hand we can do nothing and if all goes well there will be  
no IPv6 NAT so we're all happy because not doing anything made the  
right thing happen. (Although I've used a NAT66 implementation myself  
some years back, so there is at least one out there.)

But if we do nothing, we run the risk that someone will do a quick  
search and replace on their NAT44 code and create a port overloading  
NAT66. The port overloading is 90% of the harmful stuff that NAT boxes  
do.

What we could do is come up with a stateless, transport-agnostic 1- 
to-1 NAT66 spec so we at least avoid the port overloading and nothing  
much breaks except referrals.
_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim