On Jan 25, 2009, at 00:57, Rémi Després wrote:
Another point made in Minneapolis, is roughly that, if CPEs are NAT66 capable in any way, hosts should be able to control whether they are permitted to modify addresses or not (noted by Dave Thaler in the last sentence of http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/minutes/behave.txt): - In IPv6, host should be able to protect *end-to-end transparency* whenever and wherever desirable for applications.
Which prompts me to ask the annoying question: should hosts be required to opt *IN* or *OUT*? I don't see any reason why hosts should be required to opt OUT, but I'm prepared to hear arguments for it. I expect they will be highly entertaining.
-- james woodyatt <[email protected]> member of technical staff, communications engineering _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
