> Yeah, but we're trying to get rid of that stuff, or at least > considerably reduce the cost and complexity, because (among other > things) it presents a huge barrier to adoption of new multiparty apps. Promoters of NAT, particularly vendors, seem to have a two-valued view of the network in which inside is good and outside is evil. But network operators, who sit on the outside of the NAT, do not share that view. In fact, we see a future in which cloud computing centers within the network infrastructure will lead to a wide variety of new multiparty applications. In many cases the network operator also takes management responsibility for gateway devices, so the idea of evil on the outside is even further fetched. That said, if there is to be some form of NAT66 because there are real requirements elsewhere, it would be preferable if the defined default state of this NAT66 was to *NOT* translate addresses. This is not crazy if you see it in the context of a NAT device which includes stateful firewalling. I suggest that if part of the problem is an excess of pressure from vendors, then the IETF could resolve this by actively seeking greater input from other stakeholders such as network operators. --Michael Dillon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf