Re: The argument for writing a general purpose NAT for IPv6

[james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>]

On Apr 18, 2007, at 00:51, EricLKlein@softhome.net wrote:
> To Paraphrase Alex Lightman:
> When a mobile device has a private address, it receives an endless  
> series of "keep alives". The carrier's NAT wants to assign the  
> private number to another device, and so it keeps "checking the  
> roast", but this burns up the battery. With an IPv6 address once  
> the connection is made there is no need to keep "checking the  
> roast" every few seconds. -
> http://www.usipv6.com/6sense/2004/oct/october03.htm
> This seems worth keeping NAT out of IPv6 for mobile devices alone  
> in addition to the reasons that were in our document.

Won't the keep-alives need to be sent from the mobile device to keep  
the *filter* state from timing out whether there is NAT in the loop  
or not?  It seems to me this is just a fact of life that mobile  
wireless devices are going to have to endure, simply as a result of  
our insistence that gateways implement asymmetric stateful packet  
filters in factory default configurations.


--
j h woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>