Re: Call for action vs. lost opportunity (Was: Re: Renumbering)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Stephen,

Perhaps, if the folks hadn't been so dogmatically against NAT at the time, the v4-to-v6 transition model would have worked similarly and we'd be done with it by now...

I doubt it. The underlying problem with NAT doesn't go away whatever you
do. IMHO, there probably isn't any true solution that doesn't involve
a mechanism for distributing address-to-address mappings in some shape
or form, so that all parties have the same view of whatever address
mapping applies to a given e2e traffic flow. (It doesn't matter for
this argument whether you're using the address mapping to perform NAT,
encapsulation, or SHIM6 type address-swapping.)

If you try to design a better NAT-PT, I'm pretty sure it will involve
signalling back to the IPv6 side that "your correspondent believes
that your address is ::FFFF:192.0.2.3", or some such.

   Brian

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]