Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On 11/13/15 13:41 , Howard, Lee wrote:
> I apologize for not continuing to ride herd on this thread since returning
> from the IETF meeting.
>
> Please, let us focus on this document in this thread.

So, I think we are going with some from of "NPT66 and NAT66 are not 
recommended" along with pointers to what breaks if you use NPT66 or 
NAT66, section 5 of RFC6296, RFC4864, RFC2993, etc...

What about addressing solutions to the issues that are driving some to 
consider NPT, which I think are multihoming, provider lock in, and 
fundamentally renumbering.  So maybe reference LISP (RFC6830), ILNP 
(RFC6740), renumbering (RFC5887), and maybe the Home Net architecture 
(RFC7368).

Other suggestions?

It's not an effective argument to say; "Don't do that, because we said 
so, and we don't know what you should do, just not that."

To be effective besides telling people "don't do that", we need to tell 
them "why they shouldn't" and probably more important "what the 
alternatives are".

So "NAT is harmful" is not an effective argument.

Thanks

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: [e-mail]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================