Subject: Suggestion for draft-iab-ipv6-nat-00

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 18:49:15 -0400

Hi Dave and Lixia,
  I went through this document and it looks good. It provides a nice 
balanced viewpoint on the issues. One thing I would like to be added 
into the document is a cost-benefit analysis of doing ipv6 NAT for each 
of the problems in section 2. e.g.

Avoid renumbering
Benefit: Don't have to renumber since it is hard...
Cost: Another box to manage, Application complexity, Traversal 
infrastructure, Power consumption...

I am afraid that absent this analysis, we might be optimizing for the 
worst case scenario and end up with a permanent box on the path. 
Renumbering due to provider changes is a fairly rare phenomenon (for 
some definition of rare) and every operator needs to perform this 
analysis for themselves to see if NAT66 or some other solution would end 
up being the better solution for them.

Thanks
Suresh