IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft

EricLKlein@softhome.net Mon, 10 November 2008 15:21 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 8744C28C0E7 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:21:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.874
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.874 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.437, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, 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 pElCOC2QD12U for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:21:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B01028C0E4 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:20:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KzYV3-000A1n-Ei for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:16:21 +0000
Received: from [66.54.152.27] (helo=jive.SoftHome.net) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <EricLKlein@softhome.net>) id 1KzYUx-000A0u-AE for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:16:17 +0000
Received: (qmail 4561 invoked by uid 417); 10 Nov 2008 15:16:05 -0000
Received: from mambo- (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.2.15) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 10 Nov 2008 15:16:05 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 417) by softhome.net with local; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:16:04 -0700
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> <20081108093045.GV89033@Space.Net> <courier.4915760A.00007FB9@softhome.net> <70672088D7D2CE409FB05DDD7B73D3810232327A@xmb-ams-33c.emea.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <70672088D7D2CE409FB05DDD7B73D3810232327A@xmb-ams-33c.emea.cisco.com>
From: EricLKlein@softhome.net
To: "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <gvandeve@cisco.com>
Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, 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
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:16:04 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sender: EricLKlein@softhome.net
X-Originating-IP: [62.219.175.130]
Message-ID: <courier.49185034.00006837@softhome.net>
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) writes: 

> 
> RFC4864 does provide alternatives for NAT in some cases, however there
> are gaps. As Brian mentioned in an earlier response, these GAPS could be
> solved in different ways, and while NAT66 may be one of them, there
> could be other solutions out there not being investigated. My prefered
> way of moving fwd is to first understand the actual problem that needs
> to be solved (problem space), then understand the solution space. Now,
> it seems the other way around, which makes little sense.

This makes sense to me, lets first identify the problems we want to solve 
and then see how to fix them rather than assigning NAT as a solution to 
problems that are not clearly defined.
Eric

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email