Le 2 nov. 2010 à 18:26, Dan Wing a écrit : > The ASCONF mechanism is not "proposed" -- it is in RFC5061 where it > says:
Right. I should have said the ::0 address handling in NATs themselves. In my understanding, this isn't in an RFC yet. (Please correct me if I am wrong again.) > >> It therefore remains true that NAT66 and SCTP are incompatible. >> Right? > > I disagree. OK, thanks for answering. I suppose you mean that they are compatible with SCTP: - in the multihoming case - without "The SCTP specific variant of NAT" of draft-ietf-behave-sctpnat-03 - sec. 6. (Otherwise, this wouldn't be full compatibility, the only meaningful one if there is no caveat.) I will look more deeply at what the ASCONF does with ::0 addresses if there are several CPEs and no specific function in NATs. > ... > >> 2. I may have some questions about the example of draft-ietf-behave- >> sctpnat-03 page 17. >> If yes, I will pursue off list (the subject has no relationship with >> stateless NAT66) > > There has been scant review of SCTP NAT in BEHAVE, which I have found > distressing. I look forward to your comments. Scant review are dangerous indeed, especially when there isn't enough explanation to understand whether what is claimed is true or not. Regards, RD _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
