Qualifying the Harmfulness of Address Translation
draft-vogt-address-translation-harmfulness-03
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Christian Vogt | ||
| Last updated | 2009-07-13 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
Address translation is widely considered harmful because it conflicts with design principles highly regarded within the Internet engineering community. Still, address translation has become common practice despite technical problems because it constitutes an easy- to-deploy solution to a set of common operational needs. Since some of these needs will continue to exist in IP version 6, there is concern within the Internet engineering community about the potential proliferation of harmful technology from IP version 4 to IP version 6. This document investigates this concern. It compares feasible address translator designs with respect to the harmful impact they may have, explains why the problems of address translation, as used today, are to a significant extent entailed by the shortage of global addresses in IP version 4, and shows how the problems can be mitigated in IP version 6.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)