[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (NAT) Re: Interactions between IPSEC and NAT
Suresh,
I don't see belaboring these points further. I will agree that we
disagree on the values and capabilities of NAT and thats fine, rather
than provide anymore counter arguments, because I believe the point of
this mail list and group is to develop the specifics that relate to that
which can be standardized in the IETF to support NAT technology.
So lets start having that discussion because I am an engineer who is
interested and will build a NAT implementation as one solution to leave
IPv4 and move on to IPv6 and avoid private addresses as ONE customer
"choice" to accomplish this task.
As far as other solutions that don't use NAT I take your mail this is
not the place to work on that, though you put that politically quite
well as other comments you have made now and in the past, which is good
as your the chair and need to be nice to us. Thank You.
Soooo... I will connect offline with a few folks and suggest we have a
BOF potentially of alternative solutions to NAT. My work on NNAT is for
v4-v6 transition and that clearly belongs in the NGTRANS WG I agree. But
my engineering work on this has made me realize as an implementor I can
implement alternatives to NAT and I will see if others in our
community are interested in, in another forum. Including for IPv4
regardless of IPv6. So now I am also interested in solutions that can
avoid NAT in IPv4 too.
Others can send me mail PRIVATELY if you interested in such a BOF for
the L.A. meeting.
thanks for working to clear this up,
/jim
Follow-Ups:
References: