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

From: Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema at windows.microsoft.com>
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 21:54:39 -0800
In-reply-to: <8EFB68EAE061884A8517F2A755E8B60A193CCC3BF8 at NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
References: <200811262240.mAQMeC6Z045877 at drugs.dv.isc.org><Pine.LNX.4.33.0811261455520.28290-100000 at egate.xpasc.com> <075101c9501d$1344cf00$39ce6d00$ at net> <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C316615572FFBB6 at mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <FA256DDD-5C7B-4AD4-A8AA-ADC368F37162 at cisco.com> <CE67747D-DE1F-47BB-982B-9080DBAE9CB5 at muada.com> <8EFB68EAE061884A8517F2A755E8B60A193CCC3BF8 at NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>

you might take a look at he nat66 document and the behave IPv4/IPv6documents. they're pretty different.


On Dec 1, 2008, at 7:07 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:

Of course, Iljitsch points an interesting issue. If NAT66 behavesexactly like, say, NAT 64, then why would the organization bother touse IPv6 rather than sticking with net 10?


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

Follow-Ups:
- RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impacttoapplicationdevelopers
  - From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip

References:
- Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers
  - From: Mark Andrews
- Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers
  - From: David Morris
- RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers
  - From: Tony Hain
- RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers
  - From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers
  - From: Fred Baker
- Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
- RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers
  - From: Christian Huitema

Prev by Date: EMM State
Next by Date: Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers
Previous by thread: RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers
Next by thread: RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impacttoapplicationdevelopers
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 impactto applicationdevelopers

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