--On Sunday, 01 July, 2007 10:49 -0700 Paul Hoffman
At 1:56 AM +0900 7/2/07, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> NAT-PT really needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.
> It provides all of the disadvantages of IPv4+NAT with all
of the transition costs of IPv6. If there is ever any
significant penetration of NAT-PT, then the pseudo-IPv6
network will not be able to support any more kinds of
applications than the NATted IPv4 does today.
i tend to agree, but in rfc-index.txt i could not find the
change of state to "Historic". what happend to very similar
(and much more evil IMHO) transition technology, SIIT?
-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic> indicates that the document
making NAT-PT is in the RFC Editor's queue.
I wasn't aware that the RFC Editor couldn't simply move a
document to historic in the index when something is queued that
explains that action. The two actions -- reclassification and
publication-- ought to be largely independent. Or is this
another example of the triumph of procedure over good sense?
Ietf mailing list