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

[Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>]

> 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.

I must have missed that consensus call.

I'd like to see a one- or two-sentence recommendation, or some statement
that this is an interim measure.  More than that, I think, would be too
much.

Keith

> 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?