[136571] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Thu Feb 3 14:56:26 2011
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 13:55:39 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu>
In-Reply-To: <201102031404.45801.lowen@pari.edu>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2/3/2011 1:04 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Thursday, February 03, 2011 01:35:46 pm Jack Bates wrote:
>> I understand and agree that CPEs should not use NAT66. It should even be
>> a MUST NOT in the cpe router draft.
>
> Do you really think that this will stop the software developers of some CPE routers' OS code from just making it work? Do you really think the standard saying 'thou shalt not NAT' will produce the desired effect of preventing such devices from actually getting built?
>
Do you think we have to have a standard for them to implement it?
If they can ignore the CPE router rules, they can implement NAT66 on
their own, too.
Jack
