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

[Margaret Wasserman]

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