Re: NAT-PT: To deprecate or not to deprecate: the question for next w eek's v6ops discussion

[Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@Sun.COM>]

On Nov 5, 2004, at 11:33 AM, Senthil Sivakumar wrote:

> > 2. Use Cases for NAT-PT and other translation mechanisms
> > - A number of use cases where NAT-PT is being used (whether 
> > appropriately or
> > not) or is thought to be a possible solution were discussed. More 
> > input on
> > other cases and details of identified cases has been asked for and is 
> > still
> > wanted in some cases - please send in detailed info if possible.
>
> As long as we can agree to the fact that there will be nodes/networks
> that are v6only/v4 only and there will be a need for these 
> nodes/networks
> to talk to each other (your military scenario case is an example, wont 
> be
> the first and last), we will need a translation mechanism. You have 
> also
> mentioned that many of the issues identified is not specific to NAT-PT 
> but
> general translation issues. So it does not matter if we deprecate this 
> and
> write a brand new translation mechanism we will still inherit all the 
> general
> issues.

I think this is the crux of the issue. NAT-PT is not just NAT for v4 to 
v6.
Because of its design, it adds new issue to the plate of NAT.

IMHO, the way forward is not to pretend any translation v6->v4 is bad, 
but to declare
that the specific method described in RFC2766 is problematic and thus 
should be deprecated.

If real need for v6 to v4 (and vice versa) emerge, it will be time to 
look again at the issue,
maybe resurrect my NAT64 and NAT46 proposals or design something else.

	- Alain.