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

[chenhongfei <chenhongfei@huawei.com>]

Hi all

I apologized to submit question before finished review the draft.

I'm doubt about this sentence in this mail " once the network moves to
fully IPv6 there is no need for NAT or NAT-PT". One of client's reason
to choose NAT is security.  NAT could hide inner IP address. It is
important for some company. There are request of transition IPv6 to IPv6
maybe. Does this request needed in fully IPv6?

Best regards
Hongfei Chen

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Eric Klein
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 4:52 AM
To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Review: draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-01.txt

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