Re: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity

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

 



On 1-jul-2007, at 18:46, Keith Moore 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.

First of all, this is the worst kind of ivory tower thinking. How am I supposed to run IPv6 and access the IPv4 world without a mechanism like NAT-PT? Killing that without providing an alternative was a very bad move that will come back to haunt the IETF. (And although the problems with NAT-PT are real, they're not THAT bad.)

And you're wrong, too. With NAT-PT and a DNS ALG in effect, you have NAT-incumbered access to the IPv4 world, which is not good because IPv6 stuff isn't built to work with NAT. But at least you have access to the IPv4 world. But your access to the IPv6 world is completely trouble free, which is the point.

The following draft should appear in due course (it's only 4 pages):

http://www.muada.com/drafts/draft-van-beijnum-v6ops-connect- method-00.txt

_______________________________________________

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]