Re: IESG position on NAT traversal and IPv4/IPv6

[Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx>]

FWIW, I think that we should provide NAT traversal in the protocols that 
we develop (or as a part of some more general toolbox that the protocols 
employ). This is important, and some protocols have been hurt by not 
having such support initially. NAT/FW traversal is also important even 
with IPv6, as you may have a firewall even in IPv6 (or be going through 
a NAT64).

Jari

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf