Keith, Not going to rehash this whole argument we've had before. No one is talking about changing the fundamentals of how IPv6 or IPv4 work. They are talking about the technologies that are AVAILABLE to deploy as an OPTION in conjunction with IPv4/6. Your approach essentially boils down to... "Don't tell me what you want. I'll tell you what you want. Now shut up and like it." ..... Then wondering why you are having trouble getting folks to jump at that sales pitch. That approach may work well in boot camp...not so much in a free market economy... where people are used to exercising some level of individual choice.
End to end transparency is a goal that many organizations/individuals do NOT want.... at least not on all portions of their networks. If you can't accept that, then we are simply going to have to agree to disagree. Regardless, nothing the authors are doing with this flavor of NAT (unless I'm mistaken about it) should break end to end connectivity between devices running IPv6 since it's a 1:1 stateless mapping. A FW with statefull inspection and packet filtering rules would...but in that case the person deploying the FW WANTS that connectivity broken. If you're trying to argue that people should not be allowed to deploy FW's.... well then, good luck with that. Christopher Engel Network Infrastructure Manager SponsorDirect [email protected] www.SponsorDirect.com p(914) 729-7218 f (914) 729-7201 > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Moore [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 11:08 AM > To: Chris Engel > Cc: 'Rémi Després'; Margaret Wasserman; Roger Marquis; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nat66] Fwd: New Version Notification for > draft-mrw-nat66-00 > > > > On Oct 25, 2010, at 11:02 AM, Chris Engel wrote: > > > Remi, > > > > In my opinion, the best way to foster the growth of IPv6 is > to allow > > organizations to replicate functionality similar to that which they > > enjoy under IPv4 today. > > That's also the best way to make IPv6 as broken as IPv4 is > today. I understand the value of mindshare in fostering > deployment, but trying to make IPv6 as much like IPv4 as > possible strikes me as at best, a waste of energy; and at > worst, a good way to ensure that the net continues its trend > of making it harder and harder to field new applications. > > Keith > > > _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
