On 2007-02-28 17:02, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The core assumption here seems to be that NAT is a bad thing so lets get rid of NAT rather than trying to make NAT work.
This is startlingly irrelevant to the present document. We have a large corpus
of documents about the issues caused by NAT and about partial solutions. But
this document is about NAT-PT, which is something else.
The questions that I would like to see answered that I don't see in the document are
1) What is the deployment strategy for IPv6 without NAT?
As Fred has pointed out, there is also a large corpus of documents
about this, and it's clearly out of scope for the present document.
2) Are people actually using or deploying NAT-PT?
Had you read the draft carefully, you would know that
"From a deployment perspective, 3GPP
networks are currently the only 'standardised' scenario where an
IPv6-only host communicates with an IPv4-only host using NAT-PT as
described in the 3GPP IPv6 transition analysis [RFC4215], but NAT-PT
has seen some limited usage for other purposes."
3) Exactly why should an application be invited to care about this issue?
Others have responded on this, but to summarise: an application that
assumes addresses have end to end validity will fail. That much, NAT-PT
has in common with NAT.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf