[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: draft for Translator discussion

Erik,

Thanks, for your comment.

I can agree deprecating NAT-PT since it is fully combined with
controversial DNS-ALG.
I think there would be some translation solutions, depending on the requirement. 
So some portion of NAT-PT works well in some limited environment.
Then it is one of the approaches to sprit apart NAT-PT and pickup some portion 
and give some simple modification if required.
Of course adding some notification what is the advantage/disadvantage,
recommended usage/unrecommended usage.

....miyata



On 2007/12/06, at 14:18, Erik Kline wrote:


On 12/5/07, Hiroshi MIYATA <miyata@tahi.org> wrote:

Hi all,

Now we have big wave of translator discussion.
As RFC4966 deprecated NAT-PT, it is good thing to discuss on
alternatives.

On the other hand, I have some concerns.

a) Time frame.
        2010 is very close.
Short term view is desired by the market as well as long term view. 

b) Target devices.
It is good thing to design translation technologies to resolve 
        all issues listed in RFC4966.
Some translator proposals require modification to IPv6 end- devices. But we have to be aware that we already have many IPv6 devices 
deployed.

        So, we should take care of following kind of devices.
        - IPv4 devices
        - Existing IPv6 devices
These does not have special code to work with translator. 
        - Future IPv6 devices
                These has special code to work with translator.

To prepare the coming IPv6 deployment, we need to clarify what is
required for
which kind of device by when.

To ask your opinion, I described my concern briefly.(just as the
first step)
When we consider the tranlator, this kind of document itself is also
required not to
produce the missing part, I think.
http://www.tahi.org/~miyata/doc/draft-miyata-v6ops-trans- approach-00.txt 
(I submitted it to IETF)

Please take a glance and give your comments. It is very short one.

Thanks,

....miyata




I'm sure I'll be derided for eternity and my eat my words, but at the
moment it looks like the old NAT-PT (2766, iirc) works just fine for
my deployment/transition needs (for IPv6-only corporate networks).
None of the objections in 4966 actually apply in my situation.  I may
be the only one, but I intend to keep using the deprecated method
until I have to change.  Perhaps my company is degenerately simple,
but I'm fairly sure I can reap IPv4 networks (once I've achieved wide
dual-stack deployment and healthy IPv6 transit, etc.).  Of course
there are Operating System *platform* issues (like why do I have run
DHCPv4 for certain OSes if I'm trying to run an IPv6-only network?).

-Erik