Subject: RE: avoiding NAT with IPv6

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:17:06 +0300

Hi Jordi,

> I mean, if a vendor don't pass a given RFC in a 
> conformance/interoperability, because they do NAT, then a lot of customers (ISPs,
> Telcos) will not purchase it, because that's what the market 
> do most of the time. And this is a "market" enforcement ...

Is this true, there are a number of RFCs that tell about the bad
things NATs do, but NATs are not slowing down at all.  

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2993.txt?number=2993

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3027.txt?number=3027

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3424.txt?number=3424

> What about something like:
> 
> IPv6 has enough addressing space that allows avoid the need 
> of any kind of address translation, that is considered  harmful according
> [RFCxxxx]. Consequently, IPv6 nodes MUST NOT support any kind 
> of address translation.

A purely procedural problem exists - the above drafts are
information, so I don't think they can be used as a justfication
for use of MUST NOT in this document.  Someone correct me if I am
wrong.

John

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:39:59 +0200

John,

Yes, probably you're right. Let's then put it in another way (the positive one):

An IPv6 node (having forwarding capability for packets for what isn't the end destination), MUST NOT translate the source or
destination addresses.

We can add part of my previous text to explain this.

Regards,
Jordi

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 4:17 PM
Subject: RE: avoiding NAT with IPv6

> for use of MUST NOT in this document.  Someone correct me if I am

*****************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on-line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:13:48 +0200

Actually, what might be reasonable is for the next revision
of RFC 2460 to contain a list of header fields that are
mutable end to end (such as the hop limit and the traffic class)
plus a statement that all other header fields MUST be delivered
unchanged. Then a future version of node requirements can
cite this.

None of which will stop NAT salespersons. Only a more attractive
carrot than NAT will do that.

   Brian

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 19:58:55 +0200

Hi Brian,

Yes, this seems to me a good approach.

In fact, the same text can be used as part of the node-requirements ...

Regards,
Jordi