Yes, agree, but the constructive solution is IPv6 itself. We need to show it (probably out of the scope of the IETF).
We need also to understand other reasons why NAT is there and provide solutions, if not available with today's IPv6. We know that NAT is used because disconnected networks become connected, because false security impression, and because the lack of enough addressing space. What other reasons are to use NAT ? Jordi ----- Original Message ----- From: "BINET David FTRD/DMI/CAE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 9:53 PM Subject: RE: avoiding NAT with IPv6 > Hello, > > > After the today's decision with site local, is clear to me > > that we don't want to have NAT happening again ) > I think it was clear before SL discussion. > > > > 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. > The good question is: why customers use NATs ? > Maybe, it is because of the lack of public addresses and surely there > are some other reasons ! > So I am not convinced by the interdiction of NATs in IPv6 node requirements > (is it possible ?) but I would prefer a constructive solution that provides > right solutions for customer needs. End to end secure communications is a > nice goal but is it possible today to propose such service for any customer or > in any environment ? > > > > 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 > David > > > > > > ***************************** > > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > ***************************** 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
