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

Re: [BEHAVE] Comments on the NAT66 draft

Brian E Carpenter   (1-12/1-31/200x) 11/6/08 9:24 PM: 
Wes,

On 2008-11-07 03:40, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:
  
I guess RFC 4864 doesn't go quite far enough - it says (paraphrasing): 
You shouldn't need NAT66 because there are other ways to accomplish your
goals which may be existing or under development at IETF.  
    

And the weakness in that is that although we have the gap analysis
in 4864, we do *not* have an adequate work plan to fill those gaps.
(ADs: I hope you are reading this.) Until we do, the emperor is
missing a few vital items of clothing.
Full agreement on the need for a short term gap filling plan.

IMHO, a combination of the best of my SAM proposal, of Margaret's NAT66 proposal (renamed to avoid the word NAT, I hope), and of DHCP based port range assignments of Boucadair's and Bajko's drafts, could be an adequate gap filling solution.

Regards,

RD