|
Keith Moore wrote : > you're essentially making the assumption that all apps are > client-server - i.e. that the session is always initiated in one > direction across the NAT box. that's one of the biggest problems > with traditional NATs, and is part of what makes NAT-PT broken. I don't understand this point.` "Traditional NATs" (NAT44, I would say) do provide real service. Thanks to them, private address spaces in private sites became realistic, and the IPv4 address shortage has been pushed far enough in the future. > ... it shouldn't be assumed that there's any direct relationship > between the interior and exterior addresses across a v6<>v4 > translator. I don't see why, as far as the session acceptor is concerned. Using an IPv4 mapped addresses as destination address when an IPv6-onlyhost transmits to an Ipv4-only host does make sense. >should it be assumed that such a > box can provide transparent IPv4-to-IPv6 conversion for arbitrary > applications on a large number of hosts without the knowledge of the > applications on those hosts. In my undersatnding, neither of us assumes it. >>... a unique design for NAT64 and NAT46, I don't see this >> as feasible. > I think it's feasible because in the process of trying to describe > such a protocol. Perhaps you would do me the favor of waiting until > I produce such a description before you denounce it as overly complex > and unnecessary? I expressed my "current" belief, and made it clear that it was an "opinion", not a proved assertion. When you bring new facts, they will be for sure taken into account. And I look forward to it. > Well, if someone says "NAT-XY is good" (or bad) and NAT-XY means > different things to different people, that's fairly confusing. On this point, we thoroughly agree. And this is THE reason why I prefer Alain's terminology. As a matter of fact, I like your choice of "NAT-XY" to describe the general mechanism you are working on (if I got it right). This IMHO shows the expressive power of generalizing Alain's approach, introducing a dash, as you did, to separate IP versions identifications from "NAT". What about NAT-XX, NAT-XY, NAT-44, NAT-64, NAT-46 ? I would be very happy if this debate, introduced by Ran Atkinson, would end up with such a step against confusion. Cheers. Rémi |
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf