Hi, Roger, Could we make sure the discussion only concerns IPv6 NATs. In IPv4, NATs are here for understandable reasons. Arguments to defend IPv4 NATs, or NATs in general, are IMHO aout of scope here.
>> suspect the astroturf agenda, particularly given how NAT-detractors: >> A) have yet to provide a detailed rebuttal to the many uses of NAT > > One way NAT-detractors could back-up their claims of "harm" would be to > answer Chris Engel's request for an example of where NAT would break > something that statefulness would not. > > SIP, SCTP and P2P are examples of where statefulness is both required for > security and where the same statefulness permits such applications and > protocols to work seamlessly with NAT. Since SIP and SCTP depend on hosts knowing their global addresses, they are per se incompatible with NAT66. That's why the SAM-based solution of draft-despres-softwire-SAM-01 is proposed for multi-homing with PA prefixes. Regards, RD _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
