RE: ocean: do not boil

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

yes yes yes yes.  

And add the Cost and our best guess performance factor to it as a matrix as in mail I sent the other day.  this would be highly useful to operators and users planning v6 networks too.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 10:20 AM
> To: Erik Nordmark
> Cc: Keith Moore; Margaret Wasserman; Bound, Jim; itojun@iijlab.net;
> Stewart Tansley; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: ocean: do not boil 
> 
> 
> > > it's a tradeoff - NAT-PT is probably slightly less 
> functional to apps (will
> > > cause a few more apps to break than NATs do) but in 
> exchange for using it
> > > you get to get rid of all IPv4 traffic on your local network.
> > 
> > But you can get rid of the local IPv4 traffic (i.e. no need 
> to configure
> > local IPv4 routing) by tunneling IPv4 in IPv6 locally and 
> using the DSTM
> > DHCP options for getting such tunnels configured.
> 
> yes you can, and this makes far more sense to me than using NAT-PT.  
> in most cases tunneling seems far better than messing with DNS.
> 
> it would be interesting to see all of these scenarios 
> compared side-by-side.
> 
> Keith
>