> Alain Durand proposed in 2002 : > - NAT64 for IPv6 -> IPv4 > - NAT46 for IPv4 -> IPv6 Practically speaking, any box that translates between v4 and v6 has to be able to translate in both directions. Which side is "to" and which is "from" then? You don't want to make the assumption that the apps are all client-server. I agree that there are differences in the best way to provide connectivity to the public IPv4 network from a private IPv4 or isolated IPv6 network, and the best way to provide connectivity to the public IPv6 network from an IPv4 network. But I don't see these as inherently different problems requiring a different box or a different protocol. I think it makes more sense for there to be a common protocol which can run over either IPv4 or IPv6 and which supports multiple services. Also I don't think NAT64 or NAT46 are good names because there are several different ways of providing the connectivity in each direction, with advantages and disadvantages to each. IMHO it would be better to talk in terms of specific proposals than to debate about names. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf