RE: threats ID

["Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar \(UMKC-Student\)" <saq66@umkc.edu>]

> I would say that this is the difference between (most) of the proposals
> in multi6 and NAT. The proposals have provided mechanisms to let ULPs
> handle referrals, even when there is rewriting. Something that NAT does
> not provide.
 
what about 4+4? It is a NAT based proposal which handle referral service
pretty well. Also,if FQDNs can handle referral task, NAT can be extended 
to provide a scalable site-multihoming solution( Paul Francis IPNL is 
an example.)
 
btw, I know that NAT, IPv4 and FQDNs have problems.