> > 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. how many applications do you have that does not run across NATs? how many of them have hardcoded 32bit address field in the payload? in fact, as posted a couple of weeks ago i got an IPv6-only wireless network which works just fine for me. the only applications that does not go through it are: - Skype (MacOS X) - Software Update (MacOS X) - .Mac Sync (MacOS X) - NFS (any OS) caveat: i'm not a heavy user of multi-media apps nor BitTorrent. itojun _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf