IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BEHAVE] Comments on the NAT66 draft

Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr> Fri, 07 November 2008 15:57 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 107DB28C12A for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 07:57:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.401, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24]
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 OedssLpXBjeO for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 07:57:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13DDE28C118 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 07:57:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KyTc7-000Hrs-8J for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:51:11 +0000
Received: from [212.27.42.64] (helo=smtp7-g19.free.fr) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <remi.despres@free.fr>) id 1KyTc1-000Hqn-ES for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:51:08 +0000
Received: from smtp7-g19.free.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp7-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A910FB0144; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 16:51:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ordinateur-de-remi-despres.local (per92-10-88-166-221-144.fbx.proxad.net [88.166.221.144]) by smtp7-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E1EFB0134; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 16:51:03 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4914638A.80301@free.fr>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:49:30 +0100
From: Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
CC: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <wbeebee@cisco.com>, Margaret Wasserman <mrw@lilacglade.org>, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, Behave WG <behave@ietf.org>, EricLKlein@softhome.net
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Comments on the NAT66 draft
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> <BB56240F3A190F469C52A57138047A03014765DF@xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com> <4913528C.2000207@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4913528C.2000207@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

Brian E Carpenter   (1-12/1-31/200x) 11/6/08 9:24 PM: 
Wes,

On 2008-11-07 03:40, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:
  
I guess RFC 4864 doesn't go quite far enough - it says (paraphrasing): 
You shouldn't need NAT66 because there are other ways to accomplish your
goals which may be existing or under development at IETF.  
    
And the weakness in that is that although we have the gap analysis
in 4864, we do *not* have an adequate work plan to fill those gaps.
(ADs: I hope you are reading this.) Until we do, the emperor is
missing a few vital items of clothing.
Full agreement on the need for a short term gap filling plan.

IMHO, a combination of the best of my SAM proposal, of Margaret's NAT66 proposal (renamed to avoid the word NAT, I hope), and of DHCP based port range assignments of Boucadair's and Bajko's drafts, could be an adequate gap filling solution.

Regards,

RD



v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email