After the today's decision with site local, is clear to me that we don't want to have NAT happening again ;-)
We know that the people will do it anyway, but we must do an effort to avoid is as much as possible, and some ideas that could support this are: 1) Clearly show the advantages of end-to-end and no NAT model. 2) Have the specs indicating that an IPv6 node (host/router, whatever) MUST NOT support NAT or equivalent mechanisms. Any interoperability/conformance test must fail if you fail to agree with this specification. This should be a clear sign for the manufacturers to avoid supporting NATs. 3) Indicate that if someone wants to keep using NAT, should do it with IPv4. I'm not sure if the rest agree and what is the correct document to say this, may be as part of the changes for the local-link deprecation ? Regards, Jordi ***************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit 12-14 May 2003 - Register at: http://www.ipv6-es.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
