Yeah, but we're trying to get rid of that stuff, or at least
considerably reduce the cost and complexity, because (among other
things) it presents a huge barrier to adoption of new multiparty
apps.
Promoters of NAT, particularly vendors, seem to have a two-valued
view of the network in which inside is good and outside is evil.
But network operators, who sit on the outside of the NAT,
do not share that view. In fact, we see a future in which
cloud computing centers within the network infrastructure
will lead to a wide variety of new multiparty applications.
In many cases the network operator also takes management
responsibility for gateway devices, so the idea of evil on
the outside is even further fetched.
That said, if there is to be some form of NAT66 because there
are real requirements elsewhere, it would be preferable if
the defined default state of this NAT66 was to *NOT* translate
addresses. This is not crazy if you see it in the context
of a NAT device which includes stateful firewalling.
I suggest that if part of the problem is an excess of
pressure from vendors, then the IETF could resolve this
by actively seeking greater input from other stakeholders
such as network operators.
--Michael Dillon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
