Subject: [BEHAVE] Proposal to put a hold on NAT66

From: "Eric Klein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 10:30:42 +0200

I would like to ask that in Minneapolis we hold off on the NAT66 draft that
Margret has provided, and move to the more basic question of "Do we
need/want to support NAT in IPv6?"

This topic (and all of the related cross topics) could easily take up quite
a bit of time, and could reduce the need to hold discussions on 4 or 5
subset drafts.

Until we resolve this issue there is no point in looking NAT66 or other
"pure" v6 versions of NAT.

I still think that a proper gap analysis is needed prior to a decision.

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:48:58 +1300

> need/want to support NAT in IPv6?"

I won't be in Minneapolis unfortunately, but I think that's the wrong thing
to do for the reason that "NAT in IPv6" is not a well-defined entity,
whereas draft-mrw-behave-nat66-01.txt is. My question is: given that we
know how to define a port-preserving 1:1 NAT for IPv6, which we also know
is mathematically impossible for IPv4, and given that there are certain
unsolved problems that (despite all the unpleasant emotions, including
mine ;-) NAT66 appears to solve, should we progress this particular approach?

I'll refer people to a talk I gave earlier this year, especially slides
11 through 17:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/RRG0508.pdf
and observe that what I call Plan A in there seems to have
failed, and we don't have a Plan B yet.

     Brian

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: "Eric Klein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:17:30 +0200

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 5:48 AM, Brian E Carpenter

> mine ;-) NAT66 appears to solve, should we progress this particular
I have a problem with defining any NAT solution until we are sure that we
want one at all. Otherwise we will open up a can of worms that will take a
long time to close again.

This is why I want the gap analysis done first.

Eric