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.
Are we prepared to make a stronger statement here? Are we prepared to
say:
If you use NAT66, then be prepared for interoperability problems with
IETF specifications because we WILL NOT design around your box, and,
furthermore, that all the reasons you would want such a box have been
fully accomodated through other means which are all in a good enough
state for you to deploy today.
I think it's unrealistic to say that. We can put strong health warnings
in the draft, but we can't assert that other means exist for everything
until that becomes true (see above). We know very well that we can't
make that 'WILL NOT' assertion, because that isn't how our industry,
or the IETF, works. I'm unhappy about this but we have to be realistic.
MAT66 works for me because it makes it clear that this is not NAPT66.
Brian