[[ Resending the comment to ietf@xxxxxxxx as ietf-behave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx illegitimately *) automatically rejects the posts by non-subscribers. *) http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/mail-submit-policy.txt ]] On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, The IESG wrote: > A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Transport Area. The IESG has > not made any determination as yet. The following description was submitted, > and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to > the IESG mailing list (iesg@xxxxxxxx) by September 24. I do not think it's useful to spend too much energy in trying to figure how NATs work (or do not work). Further, even though the draft charter talks about IPv6 and eventual deployment, it seems to be ignoring the fact that if you use an IPv6 transition mechanism which is specifically designed to traverse NATs (see e.g., draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-xx [this should probably be on the 'reading list']), you don't have these problems. And if you are able to use a transition mechanism which is not tied to the IP versions supported by your ISP own, the barrier for IPv6 deployment should be significantly reduced. Therefore the issue seems to boil down to whether the NAT traversal mechanism described in draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-xx is sufficient to traverse the NATs, and whether the support for something like Teredo is expected to be sufficiently commonplace to depend on it. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf