On Nov 26, 2008, at 12:17 PM, ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
In any case, I think getting renumbering right and getting it
deployed is an
essential step in minimizing the use of NAT66.
This seems to ignore the fact that we already have a widely deployed
solution to site renumbering: NAT.
IPv4 NA(P)T (of the stateful, n:1, portmapping variety, anyway)
includes a lot of stuff that isn't strictly required to solve the
renumbering problem, though. The renumbering problem can be solved
with a stateless, 1:1 NAT that doesn't change the transport ports. In
that case, do you really think that NAT is an unacceptable solution,
and that we need to develop another renumbering solution in order to
minimize use of the one that we already have?
Margaret
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf