On Nov 25, 2008, at 15:11, Sam Hartman wrote:
Keith, would the NAT-66 proposal plus some mechanism for a server inside the NAT to ask the NAT for its global address be sufficient to meet the needs described above?
No. RFC 3424 is the IAB Considerations document covering that problem. I'm tempted to copy and paste highlights from that ancient scripture here, but I don't think I'd know where to stop. As the kiddies say, Read The Whole Thing.
The basic problem with NAT66 is that it introduces the possibility of more than one global IPv6 address realm. Where there is more than one, there is *any* number, not just the current realm and the single realm on the other side of the relevant NAT66 box. Fixing your self- address in whatever address realm any given communications peer happens to reside is the canonical problem that NAT causes for applications developers, and NAT66 is no exception to that.
If we're going to go very far down this road toward standardizing on a NAT66 "solution," then I would humbly suggest that it doesn't make much sense for there to be a single global DNS horizon where we have multiple global address realms. Do the proponents of NAT66 have any proposals for extending DNS appropriately to support the architecture that NAT66 implies?
Do we really want to open the can of worms that multiple global DNS horizons represents? I should hope not.
-- james woodyatt <jhw@xxxxxxxxx> member of technical staff, communications engineering _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf