Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdeve

you might take a look at he nat66 document and the behave IPv4/IPv6documents. they're pretty different.


On Dec 1, 2008, at 7:07 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:

Of course, Iljitsch points an interesting issue. If NAT66 behavesexactly like, say, NAT 64, then why would the organization bother touse IPv6 rather than sticking with net 10?


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

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers, (continued) Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers, Iljitsch van Beijnum RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers, Christian Huitema Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers, Steven M. Bellovin RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers, Christian Huitema Re: [was BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impacttoapplicationdevelopers, trejrco Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers, Steven M. Bellovin RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers, Christian Huitema RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers, Tony Hain Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers, Fred Baker RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers, Tony Finch Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers, Fred Baker <= RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impacttoapplicationdevelopers, Hallam-Baker, Phillip Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impacttoapplicationdevelopers, Iljitsch van Beijnum

Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers