On 20 Jun 2007, at 11:00, Mark Smith wrote:
Getting rid of PAT doesn't eliminate a number of other problems that NAT creates, which Keith Moore has documented here : http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/what-nats-break.html
I'd be more sympathetic to arguments like this if we RFC 4864 didn't insist on recommending the deployment of stateful packet filters in IPv6 that break most of the things NAT breaks in IPv4.
I particularly think inhibiting deploying new transport layer protocols is a real drawback of NAT. [...]
That's one of the things broken by the stateful packet filters implied by RFC 4864. It seems to me that NAT for IPv6 isn't really all that worse than what we've already recommended there. Sure, everything is still globally addressable, but that really doesn't go very far when symmetrical reachability is pretty much broken for everything at the edges of the Internet.
If people think they can make arguments for why NAT between ULA-C addresses and PA address will solve more problems than it really causes— given what other problems we've already bought with the RFC 4864 packet filters— then I think we should hear them.
-- james woodyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> member of technical staff, communications engineering -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
