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

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw at lilacglade.org>]

On Nov 26, 2008, at 12:17 PM, ned+ietf at mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
> In any case, I think getting renumbering right and getting it  
> deployed is an
> essential step in minimizing the use of NAT66.

This seems to ignore the fact that we already have a widely deployed  
solution to site renumbering:  NAT.

IPv4 NA(P)T (of the stateful, n:1, portmapping variety, anyway)  
includes a lot of stuff that isn't strictly required to solve the  
renumbering problem, though.  The renumbering problem can be solved  
with a stateless, 1:1 NAT that doesn't change the transport ports.  In  
that case, do you really think that NAT is an unacceptable solution,  
and that we need to develop another renumbering solution in order to  
minimize use of the one that we already have?

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