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

[Baker Fred <fred@cisco.com>]

On Apr 4, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Pekka Savola wrote:
> Using NATs, implicit or automatic proxies, etc. rips all of that away. 
> Because of this, explicit proxies are the next best thing (ro the 
> end-to-end communication) from the end-to-end perspective.

You won't get any argument from me. I'm looking at the houses up and 
down the street and asking what their occupants might think...

From my perspective, if the sum of this document is "you don't need no 
stinkin' NAT because if you just type enough highly technical gibberish 
into your whizbang thingie you can get something that accomplishes 
about the same thing", you lost before you started. My daughter will 
happily buy a NAT that plugs and for the most part plays.

What we need to come out of this document is a reasoned analysis of the 
issues in play, and a set of recommendations that will allow the likes 
of Linksys, Microsoft, etc to target their default configurations so 
that IPv6 products in fact plug and play, as opposed to mostly plugging 
and mostly playing. At the end of the day, you want IPv6 to be a 
solution that my daughter can adopt without knowing or caring and find 
simply works, as opposed t having the application limitations and so on 
that she presently enjoys (or doesn't).

So from my perspective, yes, this document wants to cover proxies. Not 
in detail, perhaps, but enough to say what works, what doesn't, and 
give advice on how to make them work well, or advice on how to protect 
them better than a NAT does.