Re: administrivia (on avoiding injury) (fwd)

[Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>]

Its not a permanent feature of IPv6 but a transition mechanism for
specific cases to speak with IPv4 ONLY nodes.  Thats all it should ever be
in IPv6.  This model for IPv6 would be the IETF acting accordingly and
wisely IMO.

/jim

On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> 
> 
> >As a transition strategy, NAT
> >can be acceptable. As a permanent feature, we have to consider that VERY
> >carefully. Many are trying to get people onto IPv6 to get them AWAY from
> >NAT. If it's to be a permanent fixture, application protocol design will
> >be severely affected.
> 
> 
> NAT is already a permanent feature.  I think that the IETF needs to accept
> this and act accordingly...
> 
> Margaret
> 
> 
>