On 6/26/2015 11:46 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > The powerful IETF community reaction to the pervasive monitoring issue > > just shows that what we adopted as IETF consensus in BCP 95, 2004 is > > still what this community's about. > > How exactly do the following fit with "resonating with the [IETF's} core > values" (e.g., the E2E principle, simple core/smart edge, etc.)? with > BCP95?: > > - support for NAT > > - support for DPI via deep parsing of IPv6 header chains > > Seems to me those *enable* pervasive monitoring. Oh, yeah - that's OK > when it's for profit ;-) > > If packets cross from an IPv4 network to an IPv6 network, the address > will inevitably change. The technical term for that is Network Address > Translation. NAT existed long before anyone tried to use it to traverse from IPv4 to IPv6, but again, the issue I'm raising isn't whether it's useful or even necessary, it's whether it is an example of "pervasive monitoring". Joe