Re-, Please see inline.
Cheers, Med -----Message d'origine----- De : int-area-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de SM Envoyé : jeudi 8 septembre 2011 20:48 À : Francis Dupont Cc : int-area@ietf.org Objet : Re: [Int-area] IPv4 address sharing abuse [was RE: draft-boucadair-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis] Hi Francis, At 10:29 08-09-2011, Francis Dupont wrote: >Perhaps I repeat myself but as far as I know solutions to the >draft-boucadair-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis problem are illegal >at some places, in particular in European Union (and at a level >which overrules national texts)... >IMHO this issue should be clarified before adopting any document >as a WG item. Are you saying that what draft-boucadair-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis argues for cannot be implemented in the European Union? Med: Just a clarification, draft-boucadair-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis does not argue in favor of mandating the use of a HOST_ID or not. It only documents encountered issues, proposed solutions and their limitations. Doing so would (hopefully) help IETF making a recommendation on the next steps in this area. Examples of next steps may include: (1) Recommend a solution?: but individual solutions need to discuss potential impact on performance, mis-usage of the solution to reveal other "sensitive" information, etc. (2) Add a conclusion to say: "IETF has documented the issues (RFC6269) and has analyzed solution candidates but IETF believes CGN should stay evil"?: The risk is the emergence of proprietary solutions. (3) Add a statement like "IPv6 will solve this?": but this does not mitigate the service brokenness to be encountered by subscribers when address sharing will be deployed at large. The issues are also valid for NAT64, etc. _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
