RE: comments on draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-00.txt

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

Excellent question but what we don't need is more NAT and we do need IPv6.
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist [mailto:kurtis@kurtis.pp.se]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:02 AM
> To: Alain Durand
> Cc: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: comments on draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-00.txt
> 
> 
> >
> > NAT is not a perfect solution, but a solution that, like it 
> or not,  
> > the Internet is now
> > very familiar with. We know the limits, and where it works, 
> it works 
> > rather well.
> > This is because this model is well understood today that I think 
> > SIIT/NAT64
> > is workable.
> >
> 
> If NAT works so well in the first place, why do we then need IPv6 at 
> all?
> 
> - kurtis -
> 
> 
>