On Mar 15, 2011, at 6:33 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > > "Since there is significant detriment caused by modifying transport > layer headers and very little, if any, benefit to the use of port > mapping in IPv6, NPTv6 Translators that comply with this > specification MUST NOT perform port mapping."
I think you're missing my point. The PCP protocol is intended for controlling firewalls even in the absence of port mapping. The issue with PCP has nothing to do with port mapping. It has to do with pinhole control and REC-48 of RFC 6092, which PCP is intended to meet. Once again, I am NOT talking about port mapping. I am NOT talking about port mapping. I am NOT talking about port mapping. I am NOT talking about port mapping. I am NOT talking about port mapping. I am NOT talking about port mapping. I am talking about the implications for firewalls and PCP-capable hosts deployed behind site multi-homing NPTv6 systems as described in section 2.4 of your draft. -- james woodyatt <[email protected]> member of technical staff, core os networking _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
