otroan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> 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".
When you say NAT "architecture", you are thinking, I guess of:
- no IP address literals in protocol
- no call-back patterns, like FTP, SIP,
- UDP or TCP only
But, I don't think that's true.
Yes, it requires all IPv4-only end points (servers, etc.) to be compliant with the
NAT "architecture", but they already have to do that.
I think that IPv6-only applications are free to do anything they want.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
