> The key point of the option is that host does not need IPv4. > I agree with some commenters that it isn't obvious that it implies that NAT64 > is available. But, we have other signals for that, I think. > > NAT64 puts *no* requirements on the hosts (except that they be willing to > succeed network attachment without IPv4). Apart from forcing all IPv6 applications to be compliant with the NAT "architecture". Ole -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
