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

[Mark Smith <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org>]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 18:56:42 -0700
"John Spence, CCSI, CCNA, CISSP" <jspence@native6.com> wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
> 

I'm starting to wonder whether this Draft is "dual-scoped", with the
scopes not quite matching. Alternatively, some of the discussion
regarding this Draft seems to have unintentionally widened the
understood scope of this Draft.

The Draft currently seems to be addressing the union of two topics :

(a) "network architecture protection" eg end-to-end,  etc.

(b) how NAT is not required for NAP, and why not

If the Draft was purely discussing (a), then there might be a place for
proxies in it, as per John's suggestion above.

On the other hand, if it is restricted to a scope of the union of NAT
and NAP ( (a) and (b) ), then I'd think proxies shouldn't be in it,
unless they specifically provide an IPv6 oriented alternative to one or
more of the functions IPv4 NAT provides.

Should the scope of this Draft be widened ? Or should some of these
other issues, e.g., proxy deployment in an IPv6 environment, be
addressed in other Drafts / RFCs. I haven't read them, however, I've
seen a few v6ops Drafts / RFC titles recently which I'd think either do
or should cover the wider issues, but not specifically the union of NAT
and NAP.

Regards,
Mark.

-- 

    The Internet's nature is peer to peer.