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

["John Spence, CCSI, CCNA, CISSP" <jspence@native6.com>]

Eric;

Just to be clear - I think the document should discuss proxies.  Not as a
recommended practice, but a tool that has a place in IPv6 deployment.  We
should be clear about what feature of proxies are attractive, what
side-effects are not attractive, and how to trade off the two.  The coverage
should be brief and straightforward.

Spence


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of EricLKlein
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 5:22 AM
> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-00.txt <PROXIES>
> 
> John Spence wrote:
> 
> <Snip>
>  > I just think that is the reality, and to try to push a 
> model that eliminates
> > NAT *and* proxy (and probably some people would like to eliminate 
> > stateful edge firewalls even at this early stage) will 
> result in some 
> > feeling that the NAP draft doesn't go far enough in recognizing the 
> > need for continuity from today's network.
> >
> 
> In listening to the (few) comments on proxies I tend to agree 
> with John that Proxies should be left out of this document. 
> If they are to addressed it should be in a separate security document.
> 
> Eric 
> 
>