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 13:48:09
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

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