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

Gert Doering wrote:

>>	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.

> Given that all currently available operating systems fully support IPv6,

The reality is that there is no one with meaningful operational
experience of IPv6.

Worse, people trying to deploy IPv6 are now recommending to use
NAT between 4 and 6.

So, our choise is 

	to operate 4 and NAT

or

	to operate 4, 6 and NAT

> and none of them support the modifications necessary to "help the NAT
> gateway", I can't see how this would be a step forward.

Read the draft. It is implemented and working on NETBSD5.0.

> But this is far out of scope for RIPE APWG anyway - if there is consensus
> in the IETF that *this* is the way forward, then it's time for us to 
> amend policies for this.  Right now, it's a personal draft and one 
> personal opionion.

In my previous mail, I wrote:

	why not mandate some form of NAT, legacy, end to
	end or whatever.

So, though end to end NAT give you freedom, which was your reason for
IPv6, you may use other forms of NAT some of which has been deployed
for more than 10 years.

							Masataka Ohta