IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft

EricLKlein@softhome.net Fri, 07 November 2008 18:21 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 18E843A68B8 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:21:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.958
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.958 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.521, 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 niraIl-U-63X for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:21:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F8543A6B66 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:21:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KyVvG-0008Yk-Rw for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:19:06 +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 1KyVvB-0008Y4-RB for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:19:04 +0000
Received: (qmail 15540 invoked by uid 417); 7 Nov 2008 18:18:51 -0000
Received: from mambo- (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.2.15) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 7 Nov 2008 18:18:51 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 417) by softhome.net with local; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:18:51 -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>
In-Reply-To: <6BB0BB30-7AA4-4821-B9EB-4703794F3C87@muada.com>
From: EricLKlein@softhome.net
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: 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: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:18:51 -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: [62.219.107.149]
Message-ID: <courier.4914868B.00003F53@softhome.net>
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

Iljitsch, 

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.
Eric 

Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
> 
> Well, if that's what we want to avoid, we shouldn't be coy and come  out 
> and say that IPv6 NAT won't be accommodated in IETF protocols. 
> 
> What seems to be happening today is that we all look the other way and  
> pretend the issue doesn't exist, because we either assume that of  course 
> there won't be any IPv6 NAT or of course there will. So we are  on our way 
> ending up with the same situation that we encountered with  IPv4: 
> suddenly, it's no longer realistically possible to deploy a  protocol that 
> isn't NAT-friendly, but there are so many different NATs  that it's 
> impossible to be friendly to them all, and many of them  operate is very 
> suboptimal ways that could have been avoided with some  forethought.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email