> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Paul Francis > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:44 AM > To: Dan York; Rémi Després > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: IPv6 NAT? > > > I wonder if standard approaches to NAT for IPv6 just isn't > going to be much > of an issue even if the IETF ignores it. Since NAT for IPv6 > is much simpler > than for IPv4, a bunch of the issues associated with IPv4 NAT > usage don't > exist. Like, there should be no need for port translation. > No need to time > out mappings. For the most part, NAT for IPv6 should be just a simple > substitution of prefix A for prefix B. Such 1-for-1 address rewriting does not provide the topology hiding that many people seem to like of their existing NAPT devices, nor does such 1-for-1 address rewriting obscure the number of hosts behind the NAT. Such obscuring can be useful for certain businesses (there are, today, small ISPs in certain countries that do not want their country's PTT to know the ISP's actual market share, for fear tarrifs or advertising to compete with the small ISP will be increased). -d > What, exactly, are > the range of > choices that NAT vendors need to agree on? > > PF > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > > Behalf Of Dan York > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 9:36 AM > > To: Rémi Després > > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: IPv6 NAT? > > > > Remi, > > > > On Feb 15, 2008, at 5:23 AM, Rémi Després wrote: > > > > > > Dan York wrote : > > > > > > I.e., either we assume no NAT in IPv6, > > or create a NAT standard. Those > > are the only sane options. > > > > > > Just to be clear, that particular text was written by > > Iljitsch van Beijnum, although I agree with him on it. > > > > > > Somehow it can be both, but NOT at the same time : > > > > In the IPv6-only world, to be reached at the end of the > > transition period, NATs should IMO be prohibited. > > > > > > I think we will have to respectfully disagree on this one. > > Count me in the camp that says that NAT will *NEVER* go away > > as long as corporate enterprises believe it is of value to > > them (as I noted in my previous message). Even were we to > > somehow "prohibit" it, enterprises would still do it... or > > our stance on prohibiting it would simply be yet another > > barrier for them to seriously consider moving to IPv6. > > > > NAT is here. NAT is loved (by many). NAT will be with us > > until long after we are all long gone. > > > > The question is whether we standardize how NAT is done with > > IPv6 or whether we just let the vendors go wild with it as > > they did for IPv4. > > > > My 2 cents, > > Dan > > > > -- > > Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology > > Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation dyork@xxxxxxxxx > > Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com > > Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com > > > > Bring your web applications to the phone. > > Find out how at http://evolution.voxeo.com > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf