[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft



Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) writes:

RFC4864 does provide alternatives for NAT in some cases, however there
are gaps. As Brian mentioned in an earlier response, these GAPS could be
solved in different ways, and while NAT66 may be one of them, there
could be other solutions out there not being investigated. My prefered
way of moving fwd is to first understand the actual problem that needs
to be solved (problem space), then understand the solution space. Now,
it seems the other way around, which makes little sense.

This makes sense to me, lets first identify the problems we want to solve and then see how to fix them rather than assigning NAT as a solution to problems that are not clearly defined. Eric