Re: IPv6 transition technologies

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 1:56 AM +0900 7/2/07, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
 > NAT-PT really needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.  It provides
 all of the disadvantages of IPv4+NAT with all of the transition costs of
 IPv6.  If there is ever any significant penetration of NAT-PT, then the
 pseudo-IPv6 network will not be able to support any more kinds of
 applications than the NATted IPv4 does today.

	i tend to agree, but in rfc-index.txt i could not find the change of
	state to "Historic".  what happend to very similar (and much more evil
	IMHO) transition technology, SIIT?

<https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/?search_filename=draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic> indicates that the document making NAT-PT is in the RFC Editor's queue.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]