Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: >> Thus spake "Keith Moore" <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >>> 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. >>> >> Indeed it does. However, it has significant benefits as well: >> > (snip) > > cannot agree more. i do not care if it is based on TCP/UDP relaying > (per session) or NAT-PT (per packet), but IPv6-to-IPv4 translators > have its own benefits. and of course drawbacks, but the drawback > is much smaller than conventional IPv4-to-IPv4 NAT as we have an escape > plan (use native IPv6). > translators do have benefits, and can be mostly harmless with applied judiciously. the problems result from imposing translators in the signal path to/from a significant number of hosts that are running arbitrary applications. NAT-PT style translators can be just fine when used with a small number of specific hosts for which it is known that the applications on those hosts won't be harmed by the interposition of NAT-PT. though frankly, most users aren't capable of doing such analysis - just like most users don't understand the harm that NAT does. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf