Re: on NAT-PT

[itojun@iijlab.net]

>I totally agree with Erik.  NAT-PT/SIIT seem like mechanisms which could
>be useful if you want to artificially remove IPv4 even when the hosts do
>want to use IPv4.
>
>I many transition mechanism solutions I keep asking why should it be this 
>complex.  We should be able to advocate e.g. dual-stack capabilities.

	i do not really advocating NAT-PT itself, so i personally am okay to
	see it go away.  but there are scenarios such as 3GPP/cellular ones
	that tries to deploy IPv6-only clients.  do you recommend them to
	do dual stack instead, or?

itojun