Martin, > One the one hand, the IETF was frowning upon NATs when they were > developed outside of the IETF. But if you look at the IETFs > (lack of) migration plan, the translation that you need in order > to make old-IPv4 interoperate with new-IPv6, is actually worse than > an IPv4 NAT. I'm sorry, but *any* coexistence between RFC791-IPv4-only hosts and hosts that are numbered out of an address space greater than 32 bits requires some form of address sharing, address mapping, and translation. It doesn't matter what choice we made back in 1994. Once you get to the point where you've run out of 32 bit addresses and not every node can support >32 bit addresses, you have the problem. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf