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

[Kurtis Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

...and I will be the first to back you up on the questions of NAT...

- kurtis -

On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, Bound, Jim wrote:

> 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 -
> >
> >
> >
>