On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 21:50, Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Yes, we all know that it is much easier to get O/S vendors to fix their
billion plus lines of code and the apps vendors to fix their million plus
lines of code than it is to deploy a $50 NAT box.
What you are
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 15:46, Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Nov 24, 2008, at 5:56 AM, Eric Klein wrote:
We need a team made up of both sides to sit down, spell out what are the
functions of NAT (using v4 as a basis) and then to see if:
1. If they are still relevant (like
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 19:14, Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Eric,
The problem here is that you assume that the IETF has decision power that
can magic away NAT66. Clearly it did not for NAT44 and will not for NAT66.
There is a diffrence between doing aways with NAT,
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 19:17, Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would NAT66 my network for the simple reason that very few endpoint
devices
actually tollerate a change in the IP address without at a minimum a
service
interruption. Since I cannot guarantee that my IPv6 address from my
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 21, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
The discussion today in Behave shows there is very strong peer-pressure
group-think with no serious analysis of the long term implications about
what is being discussed.
group.
This is why I am proposing a wider audience make a decission rather than
having several groups making solutions without understanding the need.
--
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Mark Townsley
*Sent:* Thu 11/13/2008 9:10 AM
*To:* Eric Klein
*Cc
Hi Darrel,
Comments below
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 9:30 PM, Darrel Lewis (darlewis) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Comments below inline with DL
NAT66 is in fact a security requirement in many applications and in others
it is a compliance requirement. Stampy feet protests that the idea is
profane
Mark,
I agree with the sentiment, the problem is that the 5 different groups are
doing different things that all relate back to NAT in v6 (rather than just
coexistence) each under their own charter.
I have had suggestions that I bring this to ietf or inter-area mailing lists
for general
