Michael, >>> 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 and support NAT traversal (ICE, STUN...) PCP... > 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. Please explain why that's not true? IPv6 only application --- NAT64 --- IPv4 only application Cheers, Ole -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
