Re: Last Call draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic : (Reasons to Move NAT-PT to Historic Status) to Informational RFC

[ericlklein@softhome.net]

Fred Baker writes: 

On Feb 28, 2007, at 8:02 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: 

> The core assumption here seems to be that NAT is a bad thing so  lets get 
> rid of NAT rather than trying to make NAT work.
> ...

Actually this has already been done, please see draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-06.txt 
which has been approved as an informational RFC (currently in the RFC 
editor's hands) for explanations as to why there is no NAT in IPv6. All we 
have is NAT-PT which is supposed to be an interconnection between IPv4 and 
IPv6 networks. And as the draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic is proposing to 
do away with this last incident of the NAT abbreviation, even may be going 
away. 

The basic requirement for true end-to-end connectivity makes NAT in any form 
worth reconsidering.