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

["Eric Klein" <ericlklein@softhome.net>]

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.

Agreed, this sounds more like what I would be comfortable with adding. I
will wait to see what the other co-authors have to say.

Thanks for the other comments, they all looked very helpful. And yes it has
been a long day of reviewing and writing.

Eric