Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic (Reasons to Move NAT-PT to Historic Status) to Informational RFC

[David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org>]

Sam,

On Feb 28, 2007, at 8:37 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I think it is
> more like we have existing NAT mechanisms; we have strategies for
> making them work.  Dual stack nodes is a better way forward than
> creating a new NAT mechanism to move from IPV6 to IPV4 and trying to
> make that (with a different set of problems than traditional NAT)
> work.

Doesn't dual stack rely on the assumption that IPv4 is available?

Based on current projections, in a smallish number of years (more  
than 2, less than 10), the free pool for IPv4 will be exhausted.  I  
have some skepticism, perhaps unjustified, that IPv6 will be  
ubiquitous in that timeframe.  As such, it would appear there needs  
to be some sort of solution that will allow IPv6-only sites to talk  
to IPv4-only sites.  What is the IETF suggesting?

Thanks,
-drc




_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf