Re: NAT+PT for IPv6 Transition & Operator Feedback generally

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

 




On  15 Nov 2007, at 04:37, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 15 nov 2007, at 8:27, David Kessens wrote:
PS as my personal opinion on NAT-PT, as long as we define it as
 middlebox as opposed to a protocol that has strong interoperation
 needs, I am not convinced that it actually even needs to be
 standardized by IETF as it is perfectly possible to implement
 NAT-PT without a stable IETF specification and to make it work
 across the Internet.

We did that with NAT, and I think we lived to regret it.

In fact, I was thinking about adding text to my modified NAT-PT draft to mandate some specific NAT behavior rather than letting the vendors figure it out in order to make it easier for applications to work around the problems that the NAT part in NAT-PT creates.

I also believe we are moving towards a consensus that a NAT-PT like solution that purely exists in a middlebox is probably not workable for exactly the reasons that RFC 4966 explains so changes on either the IPv6 or IPv4 host that communicates through the NAT-PT translator are required.

I agree that specifying the behaviour in reasonable detail is useful,
both so that users have a clear basis for evaluating and comparing
different implementations, and also so that application protocol
folks can have a more predictable behaviour.

NAT-like devices simply are not going to go away.  Having a clear
and reasonably detailed specification for the behaviour of such
a device gives application protocol designers a better chance of
designing an application protocol that will work through whichever
devices get deployed.

If I look on the shelves at the big box geek store in Silly Valley,
there are bunches of different consumer gateway boxes at consumer
price points.

I can't easily find any consumer "gateway" box on the shelves there
that does not include IPv4 NAT or NAPT today.  Operationally, the
behaviours do seem to differ somewhat.  To the extent the behaviours
are similar or identical, then the application protocol designers
work is made easier.

Yours,

Ran
rja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


_______________________________________________

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]