RE: draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-01.txt - "maybe add a bit more on proxy servers ..."

["Li, Qing" <qing.li@bluecoat.com>]

> 
> I think we do. My position on things such as NAT and proxy 
> servers is based on having my fingers burnt a few times by, 
> more broadly, state in the network. I suppose I'm looking to 
> identify opportunities where, in the future, those problems 
> can be avoided, rather than them having to be remedied.
> I'm hoping that IPv6 will provide those opportunities. That's 
> why I'd like to discourage "legacy" IPv4 technologies in IPv6 
> if it is possible.
> 

    You are certainly right in that some proxy functions are 
    provided to circumvent the limitations in IPv4 deployment. 
    However, many proxy functions are developed for other good 
    reasons. I think classifying proxy servers in general as 
    "legacy" IPv4 technologies is something we should avoid. 

    For example, having a reverse proxy placed in front of a set
    of web servers hides the identities of those servers and
    can improve performance. Such a proxy would still be
    necessary in the IPv6 environment.

    -- Qing