On 2009-03-21 09:23, Keith Moore wrote:
...
> Disagree. NATs impair both addressability and reachability, and we do a
> disservice to the community if we pretend otherwise. NAT (really NAPT)
> does harm to reachability because it blocks traffic in one direction
> even if this is not explicit policy, and NAPT limits the flexibility of
> a site to choose a policy that takes application usage into account. NAT
> can also impair reachability when binding state is lost or discarded.
And that, of course, is the critical thing about a hypothetical NAT66
that uses a stateless prefix-rewriting algorithm and doesn't touch
interface identifiers or ports. Its impact is purely on the address
transparency, which is far easier to deal with than reachability
failures.
Brian
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
