IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft

Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> Sun, 09 November 2008 22:36 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ACC53A694E for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 14:36:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, 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 Tcjb6A6LB5a9 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 14:36:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 290603A6904 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 14:36:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KzIoe-0006HE-Fs for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:31:32 +0000
Received: from [2001:1af8:2:5::2] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <iljitsch@muada.com>) id 1KzIoX-0006Gc-Qm for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:31:29 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.194] (static-167-138-7-89.ipcom.comunitel.net [89.7.138.167] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mA9MUQlg066772 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 9 Nov 2008 23:30:27 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com)
Cc: Margaret Wasserman <mrw@lilacglade.org>, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, Behave WG <behave@ietf.org>, "Wes Beebee \"(wbeebee)" <wbeebee@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <9937716B-A667-4FB6-8337-9596AD356901@muada.com>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
To: EricLKlein@softhome.net
In-Reply-To: <courier.4914868B.00003F53@softhome.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Subject: Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 23:30:58 +0100
References: <4911B9E7.8090108@free.fr> <BB56240F3A190F469C52A57138047A03014762B5@xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com> <courier.4912CE09.00003CB8@softhome.net> <BB56240F3A190F469C52A57138047A03014765AF@xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com> <6BB0BB30-7AA4-4821-B9EB-4703794F3C87@muada.com> <courier.4914868B.00003F53@softhome.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

On 7 nov 2008, at 19:18, EricLKlein@softhome.net wrote:

> This is why we have RFC 4864, and the comment that the IETF does not  
> support NAT in IPv6. We need to find a way to make it crystal clear  
> that NAT is not part of v6 and using it will be non-standard.
> And this is why I think this draft will cause more harm than good.

I don't think RFC 4864 is clear enough.

If the IETF is serious about avoiding IPv6 NAT, it needs to send out a  
warning to operators that they WILL have problems if they deploy it.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email