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

["EricLKlein" <ericlklein@softhome.net>]

From: "Alain Durand"
> 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.
>


I tend to disagree.

To borrow somthing Tony said in another thread:
"The IETF needs to be about developing a
growing and vibrant Internet, so resisting the inevitable change is counter
productive. In that light, it is time to remove the special status of
separate working groups for IPv6, and make it the default IP protocol for
all IETF work. "

Since we as a WG have decided to depriciate NAT and not support (allow) it
into IPv6 I think it is time that we just say that it is not supported and
start killing it off once and for all. Otherwise we will always have to work
the old NAT space and functions into the IPv6 space.

I understand the need for a transition mechanisim, but I do not feel that it
is strongly stated enough the NAT is out. Not even the why you don't need
NAT draft (draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-00) tries to do that.

We need to start pushing the new standards out to the market ASAP, or we
will be trying to back fix all sorts of propritary fixes (like the DHCPv6
issue) and will run out of addresses in the existing space ling before we
get real acceptance of IPv6.

Eric