Re: Review: draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-01.txt

[Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>]

Eric Klein wrote:

> Elwyn Davies wrote
>
>
> > In terms of NAT-PT, I think it would be appropriate to add a section
> > saying why it would be dangerous to constrain future developments of
> > IPv6 networks by eliminating NATs and then adding back the general form
> > of NAT-PT just to do transitions.  If it is agreed that this is wanted,
> > I am prepared to draft a suitable piece of text.
>
> I am not exactly sure, but it sounds like what you are proposing is exactly
> opposite of the goal of this draft. Effectively this draft is saying that
> NATs should  not exist in an IPv6 network and should not be supported as the
> features and functions that NAT used to provide are now inherent in the IPv6
> architecture.
>
> In which case (IMHO) NAT-PT is strictly for transition from IPv4 only to
> IPv4 and IPv6 networks and once the network moves to fully IPv6 there is no
> need for NAT or NAT-PT.
>
> Eric
It's been a long day of reviewing...

Read what I wrote by inserting brackets around (eliminating NATS and 
then adding back the general form of NAT-PT just to do transitions):

In terms of NAT-PT, I think it would be appropriate to add a section 
saying why it would be dangerous to constrain future developments of 
IPv6 networks by (eliminating NATs and then adding back the general form 
of NAT-PT just to do transitions).  If it is agreed that this is wanted, 
I am prepared to draft a suitable piece of text.

What I thought I was saying is that we should avoid putting
1) any sort of NAT, and
2) any  NAT-PT  in its general form (the one that is being made 
experimental)
into an IPv6 network

There may be (almost certainly is) limited scope for a simplfied 
translator as a front end for legacy servers, but using NAT-PT as a way 
to transmit arbitrary protocols between a generic IPv6 network and a 
generic IPv4 network effectievly condemns IPv6 applications to living 
with the set of capabilities that IPv4 has.  This is NOT a good idea. So 
I dont think I am trying to say anything other than the draft is a good 
thing and better if we avoid fully general NAT-PT as well.



Regards,
Elwyn