Re: I-D Action:draft-daley-ipv6-nonat6-00.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

Hi Greg,

I'm not sure I understand your citation of RFC4864 in this draft:

>    Until now, NATs have only existed for IPv4, and for transitioning
>    from an IPv6 network to an IPv4 network [RFC2766][RFC4864].  

The whole point of 4864 was to identify the claimed benefits of NAT
and discuss how IPv6 can provide them without NAT. It's certainly
relevant to your draft, but I think it would be useful to be explicit
about which parts of the gap analysis in 4864 you are addressing,
and about whether 4864 missed part of the gap. It doesn't use the
phrase "address independence" but does cover
 Privacy and Topology Hiding,
 Independent Control of Addressing in a Private Network
 Global Address Pool Conservation
 Multihoming and Renumbering with NAT

Note, I'm not particularly disagreeing with your draft, I just think
it could be better explained how it fits with the RFC4864 gap analysis.

We also suggested some possible directions for topology hiding
in 4864, including using Mobile IP tunnels on larger sites.
I'm not sure we need any new mechanisms.

Regards
     Brian