Martin Röhricht wrote:
I don't consider lacking support for newer transport protocols such as SCTP or DCCP a theoretical harm that is already caused by NATs nowadays.
Caused by NAT, or caused by the need to keep-state?
Perhaps more importantly, in the past the IETF required RFC candidates to have working implementations before being approved. IPv6 has no working implementation because, in large part, it does not include a NAT standard.Say what? This theorem is by far much more theoretical than the one you blamed above.
Quoting from RFC 1603 section 1.1, although the need for working implementations is outlined in many other IETF documents: In general, an Internet Standard is a specification that is stable and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple, independent, and interoperable implementations with operational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is recognizably useful in some or all parts of the Internet. ... Roger Marquis
_______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
