Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers

From: Margaret Wasserman <mrw at lilacglade.org>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed at mrochek.com>
Cc: IAB <iab at ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>, ned+ietf at mauve.mrochek.com, Eric Klein <ericlklein.ipv6 at gmail.com>, alh-ietf at tndh.net, behaveietforg WG <Behave at ietf.org>, Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com>, IESG IESG <iesg at ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:01:30 -0500
In-reply-to: <01N2DTJHH3T400007A at mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <015301c94c53$de4ec2f0$9aec48d0$ at net> <DACF609E-29EC-42BF-85A6-8DF68333FD27 at cisco.com> <18d24aa20811240256l1da6fbd1mca981bc2367e212f at mail.gmail.com> <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C316615572FFBAB at mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <01N2DOY7KV1800007A at mauve.mrochek.com> <3C99472B-94E9-4272-B460-C244D54468B4 at lilacglade.org> <01N2DTJHH3T400007A at mauve.mrochek.com>


Hi Ned,

On Nov 26, 2008, at 2:47 PM, Ned Freed wrote:

Again, it seems clear that since I'm using it I don't regard it as
unacceptable... The real question is how it will compare to whateverIPv6automatic renumbering support ends up in SOHO routers. (Please notethat I amentirely indifferent to the potential capabilities of IPv6 - whatmatters iswhat I can buy, not what the specifications say is possible.) Atthis point in
time I an quite skeptical it will ever work as well as 1:1 NAT does.

Sorry for misunderstanding your earlier post, as it seems like we arein agreement about this.


Margaret


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

References:
- Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to application developers
  - From: Tony Hain
- Re: Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to application developers
  - From: Fred Baker
- Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to application developers
  - From: Eric Klein
- RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers
  - From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers
  - From: ned+ietf
- Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers
  - From: Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers
  - From: ned+ietf

Prev by Date: Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers
Next by Date: Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to application developers
Previous by thread: Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers
Next by thread: Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.