Le 26 oct. 2010 à 19:15, Margaret Wasserman a écrit : > > Remi, I have read the SAM work twice and, as you say, I don't understand it. > Fine. > > I am working on a solution that I understand to a problem that I think I > understand. So far, Fred and I have been contacted by multiple people who > are implementing this solution, and by some enterprise administrators who > want to deploy it. We are trying to make something that works for them. > > The fact that SAM _could_, in your opinion, be applied to the same problem is > not really material to whether NAT66 resolves a problem in enterprise > networks in a way that would help enterprises with their IPv6 deployment.
It is a solution to a different problem in my understanding, because it permits to use SHIM6 in multi homed sites that have PA prefixes in IPv6, which NAT66 doesn't. > The fact that I wrote this document doesn't stop you from writing your > document, or from promoting it as a solution to anything you want to promote > it as a solution to. > > The fact exists, I have _not_ ignored you. I invested time in an effort to > understand your solution, and apparently, even after spending hours on the > attempt, I still don't understand it. > Maybe that means that you should work on describing it more clearly? It certainly does mean that. Be sure I will try to do better. > That doesn't really have anything to do with NAT66, though. To a good extent, I agree. But when it is claimed that NAT66, be it stateless or stateful, solves the multihoming problem with PAs and independent CPEs, I do object because, as I try to explain, this is technically wrong. I also tell people that, despite some people stating that this problem is unsolvable, it is in fact solvable. Making this statement without a pointer to a solution would rightly be criticizable. RD _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
