Is there a document that describes a deployment plan under a two stack transition? I am somewhat uncomfortable moving documents to historic just because they contain ideas we find unpleasant. And in particular I would rather see documents that say 'this is how to solve a problem' rather than 'this is why this solution sucks'. > -----Original Message----- > From: David Conrad [mailto:drc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:36 PM > To: Sam Hartman > Cc: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; v6ops@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic > (Reasons to Move NAT-PT to Historic Status) to Informational RFC > > Sam, > > On Feb 28, 2007, at 8:37 AM, Sam Hartman wrote: > > I think it is > > more like we have existing NAT mechanisms; we have strategies for > > making them work. Dual stack nodes is a better way forward than > > creating a new NAT mechanism to move from IPV6 to IPV4 and > trying to > > make that (with a different set of problems than traditional NAT) > > work. > > Doesn't dual stack rely on the assumption that IPv4 is available? > > Based on current projections, in a smallish number of years > (more than 2, less than 10), the free pool for IPv4 will be > exhausted. I have some skepticism, perhaps unjustified, that > IPv6 will be ubiquitous in that timeframe. As such, it would > appear there needs to be some sort of solution that will > allow IPv6-only sites to talk to IPv4-only sites. What is > the IETF suggesting? > > Thanks, > -drc > > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf