Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to application developers

["Eric Klein" <ericlklein.ipv6 at gmail.com>]

On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com> 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.

Yes, there is a very clear anti-NAT religion that drives a lot of thought. It's not clear that any other opinion is tolerated.

 

Fred,

 

I pesonally would be open to a real discussion about the needs and then about the solution. But for now NAT has taken on religious connotations with those who are for it being as single minded as those who are against it.

 

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 number shortage from v4 is not the same issue under v6 for example)

2. Do they already exist in v6 without adding NAT

 

Then we need to check:

1. Is there is a solution by using NAT

2. Is there is a better solution than using NAT

 

Only then can we make a proper and informed decission on what is needed and what is unneeded legacy.

Eric

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf