Subject: [nat66] Discussing substance rather than debating about "Do we need NAT66?"

From: Rémi Després <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:47:18 +0100

Fred Baker  -  le (m/j/a) 1/30/09 8:30 AM:

... take a look at this email thread. How much
discussion is about NATs, their proposed algorithms, and their proposed
uses...

How this thread goes is definitely a worry.

Trying to get directly a consensus answer to a question like
"Do we need NAT66?" h  as proved to be a waste of
time, and IMHO can only continue to be one.

The reason is that this question is much too ambiguous.

As some IPv6-specific and new functions are
being discussed under the title NAT66, there cannot be a common
understanding of what is meant by NAT66 in such a question.

A better approach, which I hope can be adopted, would be to start with
a serene discussion of user
perceivable
services that  (a) NAT44s contribute to offer, (b) may be desirable in
IPv6.

They would be discussed ONE BY ONE, e.g. starting with:

- Easy renumbering

- CPE multihoming

- Web-browsing  privacy

- implicit firewall

For each function,  available and proposed techniques should be
identified and evaluated.

Only after that,  can it be decided what is worth standardizing (if
any), and
whether the result should be called NAT66 or otherwise.

Regards,

PS:

For the IPv6 Web-browsing privacy in, I renew the proposal of the
following
approach.

CPEs perform a reversible scrambling, with a secret
local algorithm, of:

(1) the part of an internal address which is after the ISP prefix;

(2) bits 2-15 of the internal port number if it is a dynamic port.

Anyone interested in the subject?

_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66