If you believe that there are things missing from RFC 4864, please
write a draft explaining the missing items, so that we can have the
draft available for our discussion in SF. If there seems to be
consensus that you are correct, you should also propose an update in
the v6ops WG.
While I could quibble with some parts of RFC 4864, I think it does a
pretty good job of describing the requirements that have driven the
adoption of IPv4 NAT, so I would prefer not to spend time attempting
to update it, unless there is a wider consensus that it needs to be
updated.
The 6AI effort is aimed at resolving one of the gaps exposed by that
document -- the requirement for "Address Autonomy" or what I prefer to
call "Address Independence".
Margaret
On Feb 5, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Eric Klein wrote:
Margaret,
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 13:04, Margaret Wasserman
<[email protected]> wrote:
Let's be careful, though, that we don't redo the work that was
already done in the v6ops WG to identify the benefits of NAT and the
alternatives/gaps in IPv6.
I agree, but I think it is time to do a summary of those findings
and a quick survey from the field to see what else is perceived as
being needed. I still have not seen anything that goes beyond RFC
4864, and apparently (from discussion in v6OPs and elsewhere) there
is a gap in what we wrote in 4864 and what people think they need
for the day to day.
Eric
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
