On Nov 3, 2009, at 08:45, Chris Engel wrote:
My impression is that there is considerable pressure in IETF to NOT publish a standard for NAT66 ... or even discuss the potential utility of this technology in the hopes that somehow ignoring it will make it less likely for it to be utilized.
I certainly do not share any hope that IETF can-- by declining the opportunity, or refusing to discuss options, for publishing a specification for NAT66-- can somehow discourage operators from deploying it. That certainly didn't work with IPv4, as I believe I can declare with some personal authority. I'm crazy, but not nearly crazy enough to believe IPv6 will be any different.
As an aside, if I gather correctly from your previous messages, then you would find NAT66 an unacceptable solution because it's a symmetric address translator, and the specific scenario you described as one of your principle reasons for wanting IPv6/NAT requires an asymmetric address/port translator.
So, again-- I'm not sure I understand your basic concern. -- james woodyatt <[email protected]> member of technical staff, communications engineering _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
