Ran, > it seems doubtful that it would be worthwhile for any of the > operators who have deployed NAT+PT to travel to an IETF for > the purpose of commenting in person. There's also e-mail. And some of us in the IETF and the management thereof do travel to operator meetings. But yes, understanding what is needed, what the real problems are, and willing customer participation are all necessary for the success of any standardization effort. > Further, at the recent RIPE meeting in Amsterdam, there seemed > to be very broad operator feedback in the hallways that this NAT+PT > approach is the only viable transition strategy left available to > operators at this late date. I believe we need to look at NAT+PT and get an improved spec published. More generally, we need to look again at the current situation on whether we have all the transition tools that we need. Input from the IAB has been given; the IESG has asked time to be allocated for discussion of this topic in meetings; a number of different proposals are being made and are being discussed. I recognize that some set of people believe NAT+PT is the only viable strategy. I hope we get the spec done, but I'm not sure the emphasis of NAT+PT as something that will make or break transition is completely correct. My personal opinion is more like that it is one tool for a particular type of situations. A tool with its own set of problems. Necessary, but not overemphasizing its role would also be bad, IMHO. Should we move the technical part of this discussion to v6ops mailing list? Jari _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf