Re: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?

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

 



Eric Klein wrote:
Mark,
I agree with the sentiment, the problem is that the 5 different groups are doing different things that all relate back to NAT in v6 (rather than just coexistence) each under their own charter. I have had suggestions that I bring this to ietf or inter-area mailing lists for general consensus on a need and IETF overall position prior to defining a solution. Behave seems a little limited in scope for the decision about do we or don't we want to allow any form of native mode NAT into v6.
I agree, and it is not behave's place to make that decision at this time. I had originally proposed that this be discussed in int-area (if nothing else because behave's plate is rather full), but some folks pointed out that some modes may have affects on applications and that behave was best able to determine that, particularly within context of the other NATxy work. I'm looking forward to that assessment. So for now this should remain discussion to understand the problem space and potential solution space better, not a final referendum on whether or not the IETF is going to charter work in or otherwise endorse NAT66 in any manner.

Thanks,

- Mark
Eric On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Mark Townsley <townsley@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:townsley@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:


    I would prefer not to have the same discussion again and again in
    multiple places. Let's just try and stick to behave for the
    moment, though at some point if the work continues it would need
    to be passed around elsewhere. We are not chartering the work one
    way or another at the moment, for now this is merely "discussion"
    of the topic.

    - Mark





    Margaret Wasserman wrote:


        Hi Eric,

        According to the ADs and WG chairs, the correct forum for the
        NAT66 discussion is the BEHAVE WG.  So, let's discuss it there.

        Margaret

        On Nov 12, 2008, at 9:44 AM, EricLKlein@xxxxxxxxxxxx
        <mailto:EricLKlein@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

            Cross posted to several lists
            Can we keep the NAT66 discussion to less than WGs at a time?
            I am trying to keep up with multiple threads on this and
            trying to explain that we do not have a valid requirement
            for NAT66 defined on any of the mailing lists (v6OPS,
            BEHAVE, Softwires, RRG, and now v6).
            Le's get this to one group (maybe we need a new mailing
            list just for NAT66 discussions, but this is getting out
            of hand.
            Until now the simple response is that "the IETF does not
            support NAT in the v6 architecture." If this needs
            changing lets do it right with proper gap analysis and
            needs assessment, and then seeing if there is a solution
            (several have been proposed that are not NAT) or if we
            need to create one, and if those fail then see about
            changing the architecture of IPv6.
            Eric _______________________________________________
            Behave mailing list
            Behave@xxxxxxxx <mailto:Behave@xxxxxxxx>
            https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave


        _______________________________________________
        Behave mailing list
        Behave@xxxxxxxx <mailto:Behave@xxxxxxxx>
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave


    _______________________________________________
    Behave mailing list
    Behave@xxxxxxxx <mailto:Behave@xxxxxxxx>
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave


------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
Behave@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

_______________________________________________

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

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