Hi, I submitted new draft on Carrier Grade NAT."Carrier Grade Network Address Translator (NAT) Behavioral Requirementsfor Unicast UDP, TCP and ICMP" http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nishitani-cgn-00.txt Abstract of our draft is as follows:--- This document defines basic terminology for describing different types of carrier-grade Network Address Translation (NAT) behavior when handling Unicast UDP, TCP and ICMP. Developing carrier-grade NATs that meet this set of requirements increase transparency of data between carrier networks. ---
As much as I am all for killing NAT as soon as we can, I understand the potential need for such a device as currently carriers are doing just this using multiple devices (and frequently nesting NATs). I would prefer that the Abstract was changed to the following: This document defines basic terminology for describing different\types of carrier-grade IPv4 Network Address Translation (NAT) behavior when handling Unicast UDP, TCP and ICMP. Developing carrier-grade NATs that meet this set of requirements increase transparency of data between carrier networks. Where there is an emphasis on the fact that this is IPv4 only, not a backdoor for bringing NAT into v6. I also think you need to consider the requirements for non-stationary devices as these are starting to be more common and will complicate CGN to no end as they move from one cell site to another or into a new carrier while trying to maintain their IP session (most critical if it is UDP based). Eric
Eric