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

["Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>]

The consensus in the room was that Jordi's draft should simply document the current practice, with all its considerations, and should refrain from making any recommendation to NAT vendors.

________________________________

From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org on behalf of Keith Moore
Sent: Tue 7/15/2003 8:01 AM
To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu
Subject: comment on draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-00.txt discussion



I agree with what Margaret said in the meeting - if we're going to
recommend behavior to NAT vendors we should recommend that the NATs
implement a v6 router.  Of course if they do that it's pretty simple and
obvious to have that router support a 6to4 interface.

I also agree that this document isn't the right place to put a detailed
recommendation about how to implement v6 in a SOHO v4NAT/v6router box.

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?