On Sep 27, 2013, at 4:40 PM, David Allan I <david.i.al...@ericsson.com> wrote: > Although the list discussion around my comments was an interesting and > informative one, I did not consider my concerns addressed. An L3 ARP proxy > driving a 1:N MAC-NAT breaks a lot of stuff. IMO that is rather fundamental > and more discussion would not change the facts. In that regard I cannot see > how my concerns can be addressed by SARP as it stands...
I realize that for the people presenting these points it is obvious why a L2 nat is a bad idea, and I think I know at least one reason why they feel this way, but it would help to actually walk the working group through it rather than just pointing out that it is so, because I suspect that there are plenty of working group participants who are not experts on the topic, but would understand readily if the concerns were explained in more detail. _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
