Subject: [BEHAVE] milestone: analysis of NAT-PT considerations

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 11:37:49 -0800

The document draft-penno-behave-64-analysis is the most likely candidate to
meet BEHAVE's milestone "Feb 2011 - Submit to IESG: Analysis of NAT-PT
considerations with IPv6/IPv4 translation (info)".
	
However, we would like feedback from the working group, especially around
the desired scope of the document.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-penno-behave-64-analysis-05

Abstract:
   Due to specific problems, NAT-PT was deprecated by the IETF as a
   mechanism to perform IPv6-IPv4 translation.  Since then, new efforts
   have been undertaken within IETF to standardize alternative
   mechanisms to perform IPv6-IPv4 translation.  This document evaluates
   how the new translation mechanisms avoid the problems that caused the
   IETF to deprecate NAT-PT.

ToC:
   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.2.  Context  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.3.  Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Analysis of 64 Translation Against Concerns of RFC4966 . . . .  4
     2.1.  Problems Not Addressed by 64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  Problems Addressed by 64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.3.  Problems Addressed by NAT44 Translation Documents  . . . .  8
   3.  Conclusions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

At IETF79, we asked two questions of the room but received no useful 
feedback.  We hope to receive more feedback on the mailing list.
The questions were:

1.  Open Question #1
     The current version covers Stateful NAT64 only

     Shall we extend the document to Stateless NAT64?

2. Open Question #2
     No recommendation is provided in the I-D as we want the document 
     to be analysis document  and avoid solution-related discussion.

     Does the WG agree with this scope?

At IETF79, Jari Arkko made the following comment regarding the document:

  The document classifies things into issues that have not been 
  addressed and issues that have been addressed elsewhere.  Would be 
  better to classifies things into issues that can be addressed, and 
  what is impossible to fix.

If anyone has guidance / suggestions for scope of the document, or how
it might be best organized, the authors and chairs would certainly
appreciate that feedback.

Thanks,
-d