Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-00.txt <PROXIES>

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

I agree with Mark. There is nothing specific to IPv6 about proxies;
they work equally well for IPv4. As a matter of fact a proxy
can be a very useful v4/v6 coexistence tool. I prefer that they
should be mentioned in a few words in the NAP draft, but nothing
more.

    Brian

Mark Smith wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:11:51 +0200
> "EricLKlein" <ericlklein@softhome.net> wrote:
>
>
> > just prior to this being published as draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-00 there was some 
> > WG discussion about adding proxies to raft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-01.
> >
> >
> > > Are there strong feelings about adding this section? If so I will start to 
> >
> > draft some text  based on the comments from the WG that will be aimed at 
> > inclusion in the -01 version and will submit them to the list.
>
>
> I personally would prefer not to see a section on proxies.
>
> In the prior discussion, proxies were being advocated as another topology
> hiding method, potentially useful in IPv6.
>
> I don't think they are that useful for that function, as they only
> support topology hiding for the protocols they support. For example, a
> HTTP proxy will only hide the identity of devices making HTTP requests
> through the proxy. Assuming those same devices have public addresses,
> they will still be vulnerable to any other topology discovery techniques
> that don't specifically involve HTTP.
>
> NAT is a better topology hiding method than proxies, and, of course, this
> Draft is saying NAT isn't necessary in IPv6 for that either.
>
> Regards,
> Mark.