Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] draft-mrw-behave-nat66-00.txt is now posted

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 10:46:52 +0100

On 29 okt 2008, at 23:00, Ed Jankiewicz wrote:

> thanks for your thoughtful response.  I guess I could have refreshed  
> on the details of 4864 before chiming in.  In general, I support  
> this document and see it as a necessary evil, and agree that it  
> should be complementary to 4864, not replacing or refuting it.   
> Nothing to be gained by ignoring and forbidding the use of IPv6 NAT  
> if it's going to happen anyway.

For better or worse (usually better), the IETF doesn't get to  
determine how people run their own networks. However, when the IETF  
reaches consensus on something, that usually has a meaningful effect.  
I'm not so much interested in documenting exactly how NAT66 should or  
shouldn't be done, although it's important to point out that in IPv6,  
there are options that aren't available in IPv4 that are less harmful  
than the IPv4 style NAT.

What I'm interested in is seeing the IETF, IESG and/or IAB reach  
consensus on how the IETF will treat IPv6 NAT in future IETF protocols  
and standards. There are basically three options:

1. We don't do NAT, if you run it you're on your own
2. We will accommodate port overloading NAT, protocols should be  
designed to work through it
3. We will accommodate 1-to-1 transport agnostic NAT, protocols should  
be designed to work through it

I oppose option 2. Options 1 and 3 both have advantages and  
disadvantages, I think a NAT66 document could point those out and be  
instrumental in reaching consensus one way or the other.

I'm not sure if BEHAVE taking on the work to create a NAT66 spec is  
the way to accomplish that, though.

_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave