Re: a comment on nat requirements draft

[marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

so, i understand that you are ok with dropping this one?


Jari Arkko escribió:
> Marcelo,
>
> > what people had in mind was that the NAT box could perform the RO on 
> > behalf of the v4 CN, but some people already said that this wasn't 
> > that useful neither, what do you think?
>
> Uh-oh.
>
> That might be doable in the base RFC 3775 mobility, but not in any of 
> the extensions (shared secret keying for RO, for instance).
>
> I question the goal to attempt full feature parity. I would spend your 
> cycles more wisely and try to make sure that if both v4 and v6 are 
> available, you choose v6, making it possible to use any feature.
>
> Or in my opinion this is right at least for mobility route 
> optimization. It is indeed just an optimization. Even with direct IPv6 
> connectivity there is no way to guarantee that the optimization is 
> supported by the implementation of the peer, accepted policy-wise by 
> the peer, or passes through firewalls in between. That's why the 
> optimization is designed to be fail-safe. If you can turn it on, 
> great. If you cannot, things will still work.
>
> Jari