Khaled Omar wrote:
I don't find solutions APPLIED yet that says something is happening here.
Why can't you just say NAT? It was proposed in IETF before IPv6 was specified to save IPv4 addresses. Because, with NAT, IPv4 address space will last forever and people still insisting on IPv6 say they happily accept NAT64, there is no reason to support IPv6, especially because NAT44 can be improved to have full end to end transparency. Masataka Ohta
