Would someone with first-hand knowledge of the reasons "several major
corporations publicly indicate that they intend to use NAT with IPv6" be
willing to compare those reasons with the reasons listed in
draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-01, and identify any reasons that might be
missing from Gunter's document? Might be useful to consider extending
draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-01 to address all the known reasons for IPv6 NAT.
- Ralph
At 07:35 AM 3/11/2005 -0800, Michel Py wrote:
>> Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> Not needing NAT is a minor value add for IPv6. But we have
>> already seen several major corporations publicly indicate
>> that they intend to use NAT with IPv6, even though they can
>> get enough public address space.
> Tim Chown wrote:
> I assume the reason is lack of PI space, or is it a mixture
> of the other commonly cited reasons?
The reasons are the same why they are currently using NAT with IPv4 even
though they have enough public IPv4 address space. We have discussed
these for ages; if my memory is correct, you are the one that convinced
me some years ago that IPv6 NAT was unavoidable :-)
Michel.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf