Would someone with first-hand knowledge of the reasons "several major corporations publicly indicate that they intend to use NAT with IPv6" be willing to compare those reasons with the reasons listed in draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-01, and identify any reasons that might be missing from Gunter's document? Might be useful to consider extending draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-01 to address all the known reasons for IPv6 NAT.
- Ralph
At 07:35 AM 3/11/2005 -0800, Michel Py wrote:
>> Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> Not needing NAT is a minor value add for IPv6. But we have >> already seen several major corporations publicly indicate >> that they intend to use NAT with IPv6, even though they can >> get enough public address space.
> Tim Chown wrote: > I assume the reason is lack of PI space, or is it a mixture > of the other commonly cited reasons?
The reasons are the same why they are currently using NAT with IPv4 even though they have enough public IPv4 address space. We have discussed these for ages; if my memory is correct, you are the one that convinced me some years ago that IPv6 NAT was unavoidable :-)
Michel.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf