[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-00.txt <PROXIES>
Just to be clear - I think the document should discuss proxies. Not as a
recommended practice, but a tool that has a place in IPv6 deployment. We
should be clear about what feature of proxies are attractive, what
side-effects are not attractive, and how to trade off the two. The coverage
should be brief and straightforward.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of EricLKlein
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 5:22 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-00.txt <PROXIES>
> John Spence wrote:
> > I just think that is the reality, and to try to push a
> model that eliminates
> > NAT *and* proxy (and probably some people would like to eliminate
> > stateful edge firewalls even at this early stage) will
> result in some
> > feeling that the NAP draft doesn't go far enough in recognizing the
> > need for continuity from today's network.
> In listening to the (few) comments on proxies I tend to agree
> with John that Proxies should be left out of this document.
> If they are to addressed it should be in a separate security document.