James,
It is true that I wouldn't find the NAT66 draft in it's current state
acceptable to meet my current needs. However, just because it doesn't fully
meet my needs doesn't mean it wouldn't offer significant utility over IPv6
without NAT.
The draft as written does provide a measure of abstraction between the private
and public address space of an organization. It therefore does provide
significant utility in a number of areas which would otherwise be lacking or
more difficult to achieve without it. As I understand it, it also makes a
significant effort to address some of the concerns raised under NAT44 and the
problems it causes for certain applications/protocols. That it is not entirely
sufficient for my needs does not mean that it wouldn't be sufficient for others
who's priorities were somewhat different.
In that regards, I would have hoped it would have been considered. It's
unfortunate that IETF is declining to move it forward. I am grateful that it's
authors will be moving it forward independently and hope that it will at least
reach the notice of some of the equipment vendors looking to implement NAT
solutions under IPv6. Again, the more choices and options, the better.... and I
believe it is useful to at least suggest some standards about how those options
might be implemented.
Christopher Engel
-----Original Message-----
From: james woodyatt [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 8:44 PM
To: Chris Engel
Cc: NAT66 HappyFunBall
Subject: Re: [nat66] Necessity for NAT remains in IPv6
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
