[rrg] [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?

[Mark Townsley]

I would prefer not to have the same discussion again and again in 
multiple places. Let's just try and stick to behave for the moment, 
though at some point if the work continues it would need to be passed 
around elsewhere. We are not chartering the work one way or another at 
the moment, for now this is merely "discussion" of the topic.

- Mark




Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> According to the ADs and WG chairs, the correct forum for the NAT66 
> discussion is the BEHAVE WG.  So, let's discuss it there.
>
> Margaret
>
> On Nov 12, 2008, at 9:44 AM, EricLKlein at softhome.net wrote:
>
>> Cross posted to several lists
>> Can we keep the NAT66 discussion to less than WGs at a time?
>> I am trying to keep up with multiple threads on this and trying to 
>> explain that we do not have a valid requirement for NAT66 defined on 
>> any of the mailing lists (v6OPS, BEHAVE, Softwires, RRG, and now v6).
>> Le's get this to one group (maybe we need a new mailing list just for 
>> NAT66 discussions, but this is getting out of hand.
>> Until now the simple response is that "the IETF does not support NAT 
>> in the v6 architecture." If this needs changing lets do it right with 
>> proper gap analysis and needs assessment, and then seeing if there is 
>> a solution (several have been proposed that are not NAT) or if we 
>> need to create one, and if those fail then see about changing the 
>> architecture of IPv6.
>> Eric _______________________________________________
>> Behave mailing list
>> Behave at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> Behave at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>