Jari, As the NAT66 discussion seems to be happening in several WGs at once, it seems to me (and Tim) that you should try to hold some sort of joint meeting in INT-AREA to get some sort of consensus yes or no for NAT in v6 or at least to do a gap analysis
Current Groups working on it are v6OPS, BEHAVE, Softwires, RRG, and now v6. Thanks, Eric ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tim Chown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 5:07 PM Subject: Re: Combine WGs for NAT66 discussion To: Eric Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Well the ASRG has 'invaded' the main ietf list, I think nat66 is best placed there... as ULAs and other issues were. And yes I suspect nat66 could usefully be discussed in Minneapolis in int-area, v6man and behave, but int-area would be a nice 'cross wg' place to hold a general discussion, so ask the chair(s) :) On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 04:59:22PM +0200, Eric Klein wrote: > > thanks. I suspect that this should have its own cross WG session in > Minneapolis. > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Tim Chown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You can always try [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;) > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 04:43:23PM +0200, Eric Klein wrote: > > > > Cross posted to several lists > > > > Can we keep the NAT66 discussion to less than WGs at a time? > > > > I am trying to keep up with multiple threads on this and trying to > explain > > that we do not have a valid requirement for NAT66 defined on any of the > > mailing lists (v6OPS, BEHAVE, Softwires, RRG, and now v6). > > > > Le's get this to one group (maybe we need a new mailing list just for > NAT66 > > discussions, but this is getting out of hand. > > > > Until now the simple response is that "the IETF does not support NAT in > the > > v6 architecture." If this needs changing lets do it right with proper > gap > > analysis and needs assement, and then seeing if there is a solution > (several > > have been proposed that are not NAT) or if we need to create one, and > if > > those fail then see about changing the architecture of IPv6. > > > > Eric > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Rémi Denis-Courmont > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:31:27 +1300, Brian E Carpenter > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Well I'm not completely certain whether involving users here would > > >> provide very good experience, > > > > > > I see your argument, but failing silently doesn't seem like a > > > good idea. > > > > It is only worse. What will actually happen then is, NAPT66. > > > > >> and certainly operators would not be happy > > >> to see vendors' devices complaining about limitations of their > network:) > > > > > > Too bad. This is actually a consumer protection issue; > > > it seems completely appropriate to require that the > > > reason for failure should be notified to the paying user. > > > > Failing silently or loudly are no options. You cannot blame the > operator > > if > > you expect him to subsidized your device sale. You cannot fail if > your > > competitor "just works" by using NAPT66. > > Unfortunately, users are notoriously bad at appreciating good and > clean > > engineering over functional and ugly hacks. > > > > >> I would not like to see IPv6 NAPT, but I see that as a real risk if > > >> network is using DHCPv6 for allocating hosts just /128 addresses but > at > > >> the same time is not willing to delegate prefixes on demand. > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > Pardon my ignorance. Is there a concrete case of this in some access > > network standard? > > (I heard some rumors thereabout) > > -- > > Rémi Denis-Courmont > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Administrative Requests: > [4][6]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > References > > > > 1. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 2. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 3. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 4. [10]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Administrative Requests: [12] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > Tim > > References > > 1. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 2. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 3. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 4. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 5. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 6. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > 7. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 8. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 9. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 10. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > 11. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 12. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -- Tim
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
