Re: administrivia (on avoiding injury) (fwd)

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Greg Maxwell wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 
> > >As a transition strategy, NAT
> > >can be acceptable. As a permanent feature, we have to consider that VERY
> > >carefully. Many are trying to get people onto IPv6 to get them AWAY from
> > >NAT. If it's to be a permanent fixture, application protocol design will
> > >be severely affected.
> >
> > NAT is already a permanent feature.  I think that the IETF needs to accept
> > this and act accordingly...
> 
> I really don't see the purpose for NAT in IPv6. It's really an aweful
> thing, but if you are correct, the logical solution is to make
> end-to-endness not require network level transparency.
> 
> After all, end-to-end is goal. It can be achieved in spite of those
> breaking the network layer..

Not to get too philosophical here, but that has turned out to be a
hard problem - it's why the NSRG research group in the IRTF was set
up, but no convincing solution has emerged yet. 

   Brian
 
> As far as I'm concerned, NAT is an aweful thing from many differnt angles,
> but I'd rather deal with it on a short term basis then not have a good
> solution for the potential 30 years after actual implimentation that I
> will be dealing with the results.