IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Mon, 10 November 2008 14:35 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 A29783A6A0C for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 06:35:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.628
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.628 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.790, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 CG-YC9eo8RzR for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 06:35:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 811123A6965 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 06:35:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KzXoy-00068t-Jo for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:32:52 +0000
Received: from [195.30.1.100] (helo=moebius2.Space.Net) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <gert@Space.Net>) id 1KzXor-00067z-P3 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:32:49 +0000
Received: (qmail 15602 invoked by uid 1007); 10 Nov 2008 14:32:43 -0000
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=testkey; d=space.net; b=E/Js90v3OcULk3lFrr+GpFFxgEzBUbZXzqWTqm+lLH0CfRx+K+3eaaVdquoQbH2r ;
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:32:43 +0100
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: EricLKlein@softhome.net
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, Margaret Wasserman <mrw@lilacglade.org>, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, Behave WG <behave@ietf.org>, "Wes Beebee \"(wbeebee)" <wbeebee@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft
Message-ID: <20081110143243.GI89033@Space.Net>
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> <9937716B-A667-4FB6-8337-9596AD356901@muada.com> <courier.4917F518.00002B4D@softhome.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <courier.4917F518.00002B4D@softhome.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
X-NCC-RegID: de.space
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

Hi,

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 01:47:20AM -0700, EricLKlein@softhome.net wrote:
> Now the problem will be getting consensus across the various WGs that seem 
> to have taken up beyond what v6OPS did and agree to make such a statement. 
> I am sure that we now have Behave and Softwires DHCPv6 (and others?) 
> looking into NAT as there is still a perception that NAT is needed even 
> after Site Locals were depreciated in RFC 3879 which became an RFC back in 
> September 2004. 

I'm not sure I understand why NAT and the depreciation of site-locals 
have any deeper relationship?

ULAs exist.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  128645

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email