Is there a document that describes a deployment plan under a two stack
transition?
I am somewhat uncomfortable moving documents to historic just because they
contain ideas we find unpleasant. And in particular I would rather see
documents that say 'this is how to solve a problem' rather than 'this is why
this solution sucks'.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Conrad [mailto:drc(_at_)virtualized(_dot_)org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:36 PM
To: Sam Hartman
Cc: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; v6ops(_at_)ops(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic
(Reasons to Move NAT-PT to Historic Status) to Informational RFC
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