I'd vote for a MUST NOT in node requirements, if we can find a suitable phrasing. It may well be violated by vendors, but it makes the situation unambiguous.
Brian JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
