[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: comment on draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-00.txt discussion

To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: comment on draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-00.txt discussion
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:10:42 +0100
In-reply-to: <20030715110127.5e400515.moore@cs.utk.edu>
Mail-followup-to: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
References: <20030715110127.5e400515.moore@cs.utk.edu>
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i

On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:01:27AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> 
> So maybe it could be said that nailing up protocol 41 in a v4NAT box is
> a temporary measure until the NATs can be upgraded to support v6
> routing in the box?

Absolutely.    We're talking about (SOHO) deployment now. 

Tim

References:
- comment on draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-00.txt discussion
  - From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>

Prev by Date: Re: 6to4 vs forwarding IP proto41 in NAT
Next by Date: RE: 6to4 vs forwarding IP proto41 in NAT
Previous by thread: comment on draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-00.txt discussion
Next by thread: Re: comment on draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-00.txt discussion
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread