ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic (Reasons to Move NAT-PT to Historic Status) to Informational RFC

2007-02-28 12:37:51
Sam,

On Feb 28, 2007, at 8:37 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I think it is
more like we have existing NAT mechanisms; we have strategies for
making them work.  Dual stack nodes is a better way forward than
creating a new NAT mechanism to move from IPV6 to IPV4 and trying to
make that (with a different set of problems than traditional NAT)
work.

Doesn't dual stack rely on the assumption that IPv4 is available?

Based on current projections, in a smallish number of years (more than 2, less than 10), the free pool for IPv4 will be exhausted. I have some skepticism, perhaps unjustified, that IPv6 will be ubiquitous in that timeframe. As such, it would appear there needs to be some sort of solution that will allow IPv6-only sites to talk to IPv4-only sites. What is the IETF suggesting?

Thanks,
-drc




_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>