Re: [BEHAVE] IPv6 Flow Label

[Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com>]

On 7/05/08 12:24 AM, "Sebastien Roy" <Sebastien.Roy@Sun.COM> wrote:

> Hesham,
> 
> On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 22:58 +1000, Hesham Soliman wrote:
>> => I think that a perfectly useful answer to the IESG is to say that since
>> there is no _need_ for NATs in IPv6, we don't have to consider it.
> 
> This is intended merely as a data-point, and not to fuel any NAT-related
> fires:
> 
> I'm aware of IPv4 deployments using NAT in order to easily implement
> transparent proxies.  Specifically, they use a NAT to transparently
> redirect packets to a local address and port, and a user-space proxy
> receives those packets, processes them, and retransmits them.  The use
> of NAT here has nothing to do with preserving address space, but as a
> hack to transparently redirect all packets to a local address and port
> in order to have a local application receive them.
> 
> I'm also aware of deployments implementing this same hack for IPv6, so
> to issue a blanket statement that there is no need for NATs with IPv6
> may be ignoring some weird use cases like the one above.

=> As you acknowledge, those are hacks and weird cases. The above doesn't
imply a _technical need_. We don't develop standards for everyone who comes
along with  the hack of the day. If we did that, we'd be in trouble IMHO.

Hesham


> 
> That said, I don't know whether this particular use of NAT needs to be
> considered here, I'm merely stating that there is IPv6 NAT out there
> (much to my chagrin) that might need to be considered.
> 
> -Seb
> 
>