Re: [RRG] Six/One Router Design Clarifications

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2008-07-16 09:19, Tony Li wrote:
>  
> 
> |I don't find this OK in an IPv6 environment. We've worked very hard for
> |years to make sure that IPv6 deployment doesn't require NAT, and it
> |is not a correct assumption that applications can support NAT kludges
> |for IPv6 just because they must do so for IPv4 (including IPv6-IPv4
> |packet level translation).
> 
> 
> As has been said before, all of the translation options are basically
> architected NAT.  
> 
> To adapt to this, applications can either perform NAT kludges or change to
> truly operate on a separate and clear identifier.

Well yes, but many of the solutions deliver the original packet,
and it seems that in the particular case Christian was describing,
Six/One Router would deliver a translated packet. That doesn't
happen with a map/encap solution.

    Brian

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg