[address-policy-wg] Mandating NAT toward the final /8

Masataka Ohta wrote:

> Gert Doering wrote:
>>There is no mandate to use NAT in the RIPE region (and I think that this
>>is a good thing, as NAT might be useful, but overall it takes away freedom
>>from the Internet users, and this shouldn't be forced on anybody).

> I'll come back later after finishing a proposal of "end to end NAT",
> which has end to end transparency to be able to support ftp port
> command, SCTP, IPsec, DNS reverse look up, multicast, mobility and
> so on.

I have written an Internet Draft to explain end to end NAT.

	http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ohta-e2e-nat-00

You can see the only reason to deploy IPv6 to keep the freedom of
end to end transparency is now non-exsitent.

So, to keep IPv4 until we are ready with something much better
than IPv6, why not mandate some form of NAT, legacy, end to
end or whatever.

							Masataka Ohta

PS

First thing we should do is to make initial PA allocation /24 and
reduce the number of IP addresses allocated to an end user by
1/256 or so.