Re: Issue 41: Mandate NAT prevention if not doing NAT-T?

 

> 
> >=> perhaps you consider that IPv6 is not (yet) the real world but
> >IPv6 folks do *not* want this "SHOULD NOT" at all. As there is no NAT
> >in IPv6 NAT prevention DoSes nobody and prevents an easy DoS attack.
> >
> >And if you'd like to speak about the real world, I'd like to know
> >the proportion of implentations supporting NAT traversal by default
> >for IPv4. IMHO we likely get NAT detection for IPv4 and NAT prevention
> >for IPv6, solving the #41 in a way we can both agree about.
> >  
> >
> Is there an IPv6 - IPv4 translation type where the middle
> ground would be useful even for an IPv6 host?
> 
> If not, I would suggest leaving the middle ground away
> from v6 but allowing it in v4. ("NAT preventation SHOULD
> be enabled by default in IPv6 if NAT traversal is not enabled.")
> 
This sounds reasonable to me. 

-mohan

> If yes, then I think the current text might suffice.
> 
> --Jari
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mobike mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike