In message <78b1395e-32e3-5e63-00f1-251fa8eb7...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton wr ites: > On 03/13/2017 07:28 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > On 3/13/2017 1:28 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > >> Whether we like it or not, > >> publication of said existing practice by the IETF will be seen as > >> an endorsement of that practice. > > > > > > This kind of assertion is frequently made, but never demonstrated with > > anything other than theory or anecdotes, the latter usually second-hand. > > I agree with Viktor. If the world doesn't take what the IETF says > seriously, why are we all wasting our time? > > Doug
I've had people claim that the IETF endorses NAT for IPv6 because we published RFC6296, even citing the RFC, despite the specific disendorcment of NAT at the beginning. For reasons discussed in [RFC2993] and Section 5, the IETF does not recommend the use of Network Address Translation technology for IPv6. Where translation is implemented, however, this specification provides a mechanism that has fewer architectural problems than merely implementing a traditional stateful Network Address Translator in an IPv6 environment. It also provides a useful alternative to the complexities and costs imposed by multihoming using provider- independent addressing and the routing and network management issues of overlaid ISP address space. Some problems remain, however. The reader should consider the alternatives suggested in [RFC4864] and the considerations of [RFC5902] for improved approaches. Mark > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
