Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft

[[e-mail]]

Brian E Carpenter writes: 

> 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. 
> 
>> 
>> Are we prepared to make a stronger statement here?  Are we prepared to
>> say: 
>> If you use NAT66, then be prepared for interoperability problems with
>> IETF specifications because we WILL NOT design around your box, and,
>> furthermore, that all the reasons you would want such a box have been
>> fully accomodated through other means which are all in a good enough
>> state for you to deploy today.
> 
> I think it's unrealistic to say that. We can put strong health warnings
> in the draft, but we can't assert that other means exist for everything
> until that becomes true (see above). We know very well that we can't
> make that 'WILL NOT' assertion, because that isn't how our industry,
> or the IETF, works. I'm unhappy about this but we have to be realistic. 
> 
> MAT66 works for me because it makes it clear that this is not NAPT66. 
> 
>    Brian

I agree with Brian, MAT would work as it breaks from the NAT mentality and 
may be more manageable in the future.
Eric