Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft

[EricLKlein@softhome.net]

Iljitsch, 

This is why we have RFC 4864, and the comment that the IETF does not support 
NAT in IPv6. We need to find a way to make it crystal clear that NAT is not 
part of v6 and using it will be non-standard. 

And this is why I think this draft will cause more harm than good.
Eric 

Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
> Well, if that's what we want to avoid, we shouldn't be coy and come  out 
> and say that IPv6 NAT won't be accommodated in IETF protocols. 
>
> What seems to be happening today is that we all look the other way and  
> pretend the issue doesn't exist, because we either assume that of  course 
> there won't be any IPv6 NAT or of course there will. So we are  on our way 
> ending up with the same situation that we encountered with  IPv4: 
> suddenly, it's no longer realistically possible to deploy a  protocol that 
> isn't NAT-friendly, but there are so many different NATs  that it's 
> impossible to be friendly to them all, and many of them  operate is very 
> suboptimal ways that could have been avoided with some  forethought.