Brian E Carpenter - Le 6/19/08 11:54 PM :
There's also draft-cheshire-nat-pmp of course. I think this can be included as an open question in the requirements draft, and the discussion is probably broader than just v6ops.
Thanks a lot. I had missed this important one! Its scope does differ from that of APBP in that: - its NAT-PMP deals with port mappings *in NAT devices*- APBP deals with address-port borrowing from APBP servers where *NATs are avoided* (IPv4 packets can be just encapsulated and decapsulated).
I plan to study the NAT-PMP draft in details, and hopefully identify how much of it can be extended or adapted to the scope of APBP.
Where a "broader" discussion could start is an interesting question.So far, v6ops seemed to me the best fit, but any other decision would be fine.
Regards. Rémi