Is the problem that they don't get what IPv6 is for?
Or that we haven't articulated the use cases appropriately?
Alternatively,
Is there something they are trying to achieve other than "more=good?"
Greg Daley
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Sabahattin Gucukoglu
Sent: Thursday, 1 December 2011 11:08 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Netfilter (Linux) Does IPv6 NAT
In case you didn't see this:
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Netfilter-developers-working-on-
NAT-for-ip6tables-1385877.html
It's a complete IPv6 NAT implementation with the functionality of the
IPv4 one in the same stack. ALGs. Port translation. Connection
tracking. You don't need me to tell you why I don't like this.
Cheers,
Sabahattin
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf