On 15 nov 2007, at 8:27, David Kessens wrote:
PS as my personal opinion on NAT-PT, as long as we define it as
middlebox as opposed to a protocol that has strong interoperation
needs, I am not convinced that it actually even needs to be
standardized by IETF as it is perfectly possible to implement
NAT-PT without a stable IETF specification and to make it work
across the Internet.
We did that with NAT, and I think we lived to regret it.
In fact, I was thinking about adding text to my modified NAT-PT draft
to mandate some specific NAT behavior rather than letting the vendors
figure it out in order to make it easier for applications to work
around the problems that the NAT part in NAT-PT creates.
I also believe we are moving towards a consensus that a NAT-PT like
solution that purely exists in a middlebox is probably not workable
for exactly the reasons that RFC 4966 explains so changes on either
the IPv6 or IPv4 host that communicates through the NAT-PT translator
are required.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
