[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: comments on draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-00.txt
- To: "Kurt Erik Lindqvist" <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>,"Alain Durand" <Alain.Durand@Sun.COM>
- Subject: RE: comments on draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-00.txt
- From: "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 17:49:08 -0400
- Cc: "Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino" <itojun@iijlab.net>,<v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
- Delivery-date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 14:49:52 -0700
- Envelope-to: v6ops-data@psg.com
- Thread-index: AcJec+8RAJUgAlk3QH+xzS4qRvpZvwAIA/1A
- Thread-topic: comments on draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-00.txt
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 -
>
>
>