Subject: [nat66] Fwd: [BEHAVE] New NAT66 Discussion List

From: Eric Klein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:36:42 +0200

As there has been no discussion on the list for over a month, can someone
tell me where we stand on forming a census?

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 21:02, Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I am sending this message to several large groups of people with
> considerable overlap in an effort to reach everyone who has been
> participating (actively or passively) in the NAT66 discussions.  PLEASE,
> PLEASE do not reply to this full list.  Send any replies to the new nat66
> discussion list (cc:ed) or to me privately.
>
> In response to concerns that have been raised about discussing IPv6-to-IPv6
> NAT on the behave WG mailing list, we have started a new mailing list for
> the ongoing NAT66 discussion, [email-masked].  The purpose of this list is
> to discuss the needs that may drive the adoption of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT, and to
> discuss solutions to meet those needs, possibly including specification of
> an IPv6 NAT mechanism, that will work better and be less harmful to the
> Internet than direct ports of IPv4 NA(P)T functionality. Although we will
> see how the conversation evolves in the upcoming weeks, our current
> expectation is that we will hold a BOF at IETF 74 in San Francisco to
> discuss this topic and to determine if there is consensus that the IETF
> should pursue any work in this area.
>
> It is not our intention that this new list will be used for discuss of
> IPv4/IPv6 transition mechanisms, even those that involve translation.
>  Discussion of the v4v6translation work will remain in the behave WG, where
> it is a chartered work item.
>
> If you would like to join the nat66 mailing list list or read the list
> archives, you can do so via the following URL:
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
>
> If you would like to actively contribute to the discussion, I would suggest
> that you start by reading the following documents:
>
> - RFC 4864:  Local Network Protection for IPv6
>  http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4864.txt?number=4864
>
> - Renumbering still needs work
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-renum-needs-work-00.txt
>
> - IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Address Translation (NAT66) -- now somewhat
> out-of-date
>  http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4864.txt?number=4864
>
> - IETF 73 behave WG Presentation on NAT66 -- more up-to-date
>  http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/slides/behave-14.pdf
>
> Then, come join the discussion on the [email-masked] mailing list.
>
> Margaret
>
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:13:39 -0500

Hi Eric,

I suspect that things have been quiet due to various holidays and post- 
holiday torpor.

I am working on an updated NAT66 document to address the issues that  
have been raised with the previous version.  It is also likely to  
contain a few unresolved issues, where there were multiple options  
available and no clear consensus on which to follow.  Once I get out  
the new document, I expect that there will be further discussion.

I also hope that we will hold a BOF in San Francisco to discuss this  
further.  I will be submitting a preliminary BOF request, including a  
draft charter for proposed work, to the Transport ADs by the  
preliminary BOF request deadline (Monday, I think), and I will send it  
to this list too (of course).

We have decisions to make on several levels.

1) Do we want to have a BOF in San Francisco to discuss this topic?   
If so, what should be on the agenda?

2) Do we have consensus that work in this area should be done in the  
IETF?  This decision probably won't be made until after we have  
additional list discussion and a BOF.

3) If we do charter work in this area, is the draft Fred and I have  
written a good place to start?  Or should we pursue a different  
approach?

I'd invite discussion of any of these topics, or related topics, on  
the list.

Margaret

On Jan 14, 2009, at 2:36 PM, Eric Klein wrote:

>
> As there has been no discussion on the list for over a month, can  
> someone tell me where we stand on forming a census?
>
>
> participating (actively or passively) in the NAT66 discussions.   
> PLEASE, PLEASE do not reply to this full list.  Send any replies to  
> the new nat66 discussion list (cc:ed) or to me privately.
>
> In response to concerns that have been raised about discussing IPv6- 
> to-IPv6 NAT on the behave WG mailing list, we have started a new  
> mailing list for the ongoing NAT66 discussion, [email-masked].  The  
> purpose of this list is to discuss the needs that may drive the  
> adoption of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT, and to discuss solutions to meet those  
> needs, possibly including specification of an IPv6 NAT mechanism,  
> that will work better and be less harmful to the Internet than  
> direct ports of IPv4 NA(P)T functionality. Although we will see how  
> the conversation evolves in the upcoming weeks, our current  
> expectation is that we will hold a BOF at IETF 74 in San Francisco  
> to discuss this topic and to determine if there is consensus that  
> the IETF should pursue any work in this area.
>
> It is not our intention that this new list will be used for discuss  
> of IPv4/IPv6 transition mechanisms, even those that involve  
> translation.  Discussion of the v4v6translation work will remain in  
> the behave WG, where it is a chartered work item.
>
> If you would like to join the nat66 mailing list list or read the  
> list archives, you can do so via the following URL:
>
> If you would like to actively contribute to the discussion, I would  
> suggest that you start by reading the following documents:
>

---

From: Matthew Ford <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 06:47:24 -0500

Hi Margaret,

On 14/1/09 15:13, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> 1) Do we want to have a BOF in San Francisco to discuss this topic? If
> so, what should be on the agenda?

If a BOF is to take place, I'd very much like to see a presentation from 
a potential *customer* for this technology about why they think they 
need it.

Mat

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:32:40 +0100

At 21:13 14/01/2009, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>have been raised with the previous version.

Do you have an idea about the date of completion?
Thank you
jfc