Re: on NAT-PT

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 itojun@iijlab.net wrote:
> >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?

There are those 1-10% of cases where 3GPP might fit.

But if we don't want that, providing ALG's to 3GPP and requiring they will
have to use v6 for the rest could be acceptable too.  But really, 3GPP (as
long as you don't connect your laptops to your phones :-) is a rather
restricted scenario in which NAT-PT could be acceptable.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings